grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
yet more advantagious 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity it 's most certain that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nâ—ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency and so Churchmembers And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their owne estate to bee as the parents were even in Gods image Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership it proves not their visible Churchmembership of which onely is the question 2. If it prove a law or ordinance yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question which is not a law or ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be or they shall be so accounted For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onely can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission according to Mr. Bs. own dictates and therefore not de jure onely such 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B asserts 4. If it did yet it onely proves it of the Church by nature which hath a great difference from the Church by grace this being onely by election and calling not by birth 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed then it is in force and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin For man is born according to the law of procreation Gen. 1.28 and if this were the law of nature that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were even in Gods image then still the law of nature continues and so there is no original sin or it is repealed and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts 6. The words God created blessed do note onely a transeunt fact and therefore what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man this passage onely tells what God did but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose Let 's view the next and main Text. The next institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he â—â—ght have done But in grace 〈◊〉 undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conâ—uered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect coâ—quest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womâ—ns seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable oâ— he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars impâ—rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called then infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old strâ—ng and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members because the head is the principal member Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed that not onely in the Church Jewish but in the Christian properly so called the infants of believers by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God should be and be taken to be visible members But that he takes upon him to prove is that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church that it is his mind that he will have infant members all which we might
Church between which Mr. Bl. Coven sealed pag. 155. saith Divines distinguish is sometimes taken in contradistinction to the Jewish National Church sometimes as comprehending both the believers before and since the incarnation of Christ and in both senses I conceive it notes the invisible Church or the Church of the first born which are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 who are fellow heirs of the same body and partakers together of the promise of Christ through the Gospel Ephes 3.6 and this is the Catholike Church in the Apostles Creed which we believe though we see it not 3. I acknowledge a Catholike visible Church both before and after Christs incarnation entitive though I think not organical since Christs ascension and the Apostles decease and that this Catholike visible Church consists of all the visible Church-members and Churches particular visible in all the world and that this is visible onely in the several parts which exist and because these parts are in flux as a City Army Commonwealth there are sometimes more sometimes fewer sometimes the same persons may be visible Church-members and sometimes not some parts may be formed after one manner some after another the same sort of persons may be as infants in a Church vâ—sible of one constitution and not in another he may bee a member as Cornelius in one Church that is not in another So that the Church universal visible which I acknowledge is not uniform and is onely as in numbring a total sum of many particulars cast up 4. I conceive the text Mr. B. alledgeth serveth not his purpose For though I think it is meant of the Church visible yet not in respect of all the parts of the Church visible but those that are so visible as that they are also of the invisible Church to wit true believers 1. Because it is said that thâ—y are by one spirit baptised into one body and made to drink into one spirit now this must be understood of that unity of spirit which unites to Christ not barely in respect of common gifts to the sanctified and unsanctified But this cannot bee said of all the viâ—ble members of the visible Church therefore it is not meant of them 2. Because the many members termed one body are termed Christ v. 12. which can bee meant of Christ mystical onely for those that are onely Christ by profession are not termed Christ but those who are spiritually uniâ—ed to him now those are one spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 new creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 to whom there is no condemnation Rom. 8.1 of his flesh and of his bones Ephes. 5.30 31 32. And to his reasons I answer that though they prove the body meant 1 Cor 12.13 was visible yet they prove not that all parts of the visible Church are comprehended in that body but onely such as were also of the invisible 2. Saith Mr. B. That the Jews infants were members of this universal visible Church I prove thus There is but one visible universal Church or body therefore they must needs be of this one or be unchurched See Gal. 3.16 Ephes. 4 4 1 Cor. 1â— 12 Answ. The unity there ascribed is not visible but invisible to wit by the union of the same spirit and the body though visible in respect of some parts yet is not said to bee one in respâ—ct of any but those who are invisibly also joyned to that body or for their sake as Mr. B. pag. 340 If Christ Gal. 3.16 bee not meant of Christ personal it is certain it is meant of no more then Christ mystical or the Church invisible and so 1 Cor. 12.12 the like is to be said And that it is so Ephes. 4. â— appears from the words where these are joyned one body and one spirit Therefore I deny that those texts are meant of the universal visible Church as visible but onely of that part of the universal visible Church of that time which was also of the invisible which is one by unity of the same spirit As for the universal visible Church it cannot bee said to bee one in several ages numerically for it is but the total of all the members then existent for if they bee not existent among the living they are not visible and they are sometimes the same sometimes others hee that is now of the visible Church may cease by death or apostasie to be so to morrow sometimes more sometime fewer but they are one in respect of profession of the same faith or in some other visible appearance to be of Gods people Now the infants of the Jews might be members of the visible Church universal of a former age but were not of the universal visible Church of that age which was not one numerically with the universal visible Church of a former age nor meant to be so 1 Cor. 12.13 2. Saith he Every one that is a mamber of the particular must needs be a member of the universal else one might be a part of the part and yet not a part of the whole Answ. It is true of the universal made up of those parts but he may be a member of the particular Church of uncircumcised as Cornelius who is not a member of the particular Church of the circumcised and he may be a member of the universal visible of one time who is not a member of the universal visible of another time A Jew before the offer of Christ might be a member of the Jewish Church national as the Pharisees to whom John Baptist Châ—ist and his Apostles preached yet were not members of the universal Church visible when they rejected the offer of Christ. Infants were members of the visible universal Jewish Church who were not so of the universal visible Christian in another â—ge Mr. Bs mistake is I conceive in this that he thinks the universal visible Church is one and the same in every age which is a gross mistake But he saith This is all beyond dispute and Mr. T. denied none of it when I urged it on him he confesseth 1. There is a universal Church visible 2. That the Jews Church was not the whole universal 3. That every one that is a member of a particular Church is also a member of the universal 4. And that the Jews infants were members of the universal 5. And this universal Church is not dissolved Answ. I have made some search whether ever I confessed that this universal Church visible of which the Jews infants were members is not dissolved and do not remember or find that ever I did so if I sholud I do revoke it as being most false and I rather think if I did yeeld any thing that seemed like it that what I confessed was that the nature or essentials of the Church are not dissolved in stead of which as I ghess by what follows Mr. B. put this as my confession He adds What then remains to be denied Why this is all that he saith to the whole that their membership in
which are not made to the visible Church as visible much less to the children of visible churchmembers as such but onely to those that are of the invisible and therefore this Text proves not that no mercy such as is meant Exod. 20.6 is assured to any society or persons but those of the visible Church The same also may be said of 2 Pet. 1.4 where the promises are given to the effectually called and that by them they are partakers of the Divine nature And for the other Text though there be no mention of promises in it at all yet if any be implied the speech is meant onely of the Church of Gods elect not the meer visible Church which alone is his body the fulness of him that filleth all in all and therefore if these Texts prove no mercy promised but to the Church they prove no mercy promised but to the invisible Church which is contrary to Mr. Bs. purpose here 3. Saith he By faith it is that promises were obtained Heb. 11.33 Answ. It is said by faith they subdued Kingdomes in the same v. and therefore after the rate of Mr. Bs. reasoning none should subdue Kingdomes but the Church The faith there is such a faith as the just lived by ch 10.38 therefore if Mr. Bs. arguing be good promises of mercy should be made to none but those who believe with such a faith and consequently it is not the meer visible Church but the invisible onely to whom such mercy is assured The answer is by denying the consequence that because promises were obtained by faith therefore mercy is not assured to any by promise but the Church 4. He adds To Abraham and his seed were the promises made Gal. 3.16 both common and special The children of the promise are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Therefore if those without the Church were children of the promise then they should be the seed The promise is sure to all the seed Rom. 4.16 The promise is to you and your children and as many as the Lord shall call Acts 2.39 The seed are heirs of the promise Answ. Mr. Bs. needlesness still appears He should prove that such mercy as he conceives promised Exod. 20.6 which he will not avouch to be saving mercy is assured to none but the Church and he means the visible Church but here he brings promises of saving mercy which he dare not say to be made to the children of all that love him Exod. 20.6 and are indeed made onely to those who are of the invisible Church and therefore impertinently alledged The promises Gal. 3.16 are such as are made to Christ either personal for his body mystical or to Christ mystical and the promises are those by which is the inheritance v. 18. righteousness by faith v. 21 22 which can be true onely of the elect and so that v. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So Rom. 4.16 is meant onely of true believers and Rom. 9.8 of the elect onely Now it 's not denied that the promises of righteousness and life belong onely to the Church invisible but these promises are far different from the promise to the children of them that love God Exod. 20.6 which Mr. B. will have onely meant of the visible Church and of things much below saving benefits The Text Acts 2.39 it as impertinently alledged as hath been proved at large before the promise there being not meant of any visible priviledge nor the fathers there considered as believers or lovers of God but as crucifiers of Christ and the promise not said to be to any of either sort but those who were called by God 5. Saith Mr. B. The Church is the house and family of God and the promises are his treasure and Christs legacies and the word of promise is his Testament therefore not for these without The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the word is the truth In the middest of the Church are Gods praises Heb. 2.12 therefore in the Church are his mercies and promises It is by the Church that the manâ—fold wisdome of God is known Eph. 3 1â— The Church onely is that body whereof the Lord of the promises is head Col. 1.18 Answ. The promises of saving benefits are Gods treasure and belong onely to the invisible Church but it follows not therefore that God makes no promise or the mercy Exod. 20.6 belongs to none out of the visible Church Let it be yeelded the Church is the pillar of truth and the word is the truth yet that God makes no promises to Cyrus Nebuchadnezzar and others out of the Church or that his promise to them is not true or that he vouchsafes no mercy to them follows not God is praised in the Church and his counsel made known and Christ the head of the Church onely and yet all praise promise and mercy not appropriate to the Church 6. Yet again They that are not in covenant are not under the promises of this mercy or have not this mercy stated on them by promise But those that are without the Church are not in covenant This argument is past contradiction No man dare say but these are covenant mercies in this promise mentioned Wicked men in the Church are within the covenant as I have proved in the Appendix of my Aphorisms but those without are not in covenant though they may have some conditional promises offered The covenant and such promises as those go together Therefore it is called the covenant of promises Eph. 2.12 Rom. 9.1 2. So is mercy onely assured by the covenant Deut. 7.9 12. and that to the Church onely 1 Kings 8.23 Neh. 1.5 9.32 Mic. 7.20 Luke 1.50 72. 1 Pet. 2.10 Many more Scriptures shew the conjunction between Gods mercy and covenant and most certainly they are all out of covenant that are out of the visible Church Answ. If Paedobaptists had not a mind to mock rather then to teach people by their writings me thinks being so often called upon to speak distinctly what covenant they mean when they say infants and visible churchmembers are in covenant and in what manner they are in covenant by Gods act their own or the baptizers they would still when they speak of being in covenant clear their meaning There are divers Covenants of God that with Noah Gen. 9. that with Abraham Gen. 17. that with the Jews Exod. 19. the new Covenant Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. Being in Covenant must needs come from their own act of covenanting and then the sense is Wicked men in the Church are within the Covenant that is they promise to God But in this sense no infant is in Covenant with God foâ— no infant promiseth to God Or being in Covenant is from Gods act of promising and thus it is most certainly false that they are all out of Covenant that are out of the visible Church For all men and beasts are in the Covenant with Noah Gen.
juice effectively Abraham exemplarily the Church doth it onely as a vessel receiving it as the stock receives it first then the branch the veins receive the bloud then the other parts of the body And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice it is denied if of this the minor 3. Saith he If saving faith ingraff the branch into the Church invisible then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith but the Church is no such object of faith but Christ. Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus If profession of faith ingraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession But the Church visible is no such object but Christ therefore there is no ingraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith is no more then to say to believe the Holy Catholick Church is an Article of the Creed and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied Faiâ—h that saves hath the object Christ and as it respects Christ doth unite or ingraff us to him as to our head and to the invisible Church as his body 4. Saith he That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church is either known to the body invisible or unwitting if known then it is not invisible They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes all being done by an invisible translation and so the subject of the question is taken away Answ. It was known to some of the invisible to others not though it were known yet it might be invisible they had light to discern an invisible work Though the work were unknown to some yet there might be a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles and complaint of breaking off the Jews as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes and the subject of the question still remains There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates Scheibler saith in his Topicks A not-being cannot be a part dividing yet he saiâ—h in case any defend that to be which yet is not in controversies such a division is to be supposed But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an ingraffing into the invisible Church may be discerned and thereby how frivolously 〈◊〉 compares it to a mountain of ayr And what he saith that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an ingraffing into the Church visible may be granted and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also One new man Ephes. 2.15 is true onely of the invisible Church for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews except some few proselytes of them That the visible Church communicates sap and juyce which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church meaning the visible as the partial object are diâ—tates which I need not refute sith there is no proof brought for them As I conceiâ—e he means them they are false so much for the vindication of my third argument My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and â—atness of the Olive tree But such is onely by giving faith according to election Ergo. I proved the minor by shewing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithfull and the fatness of the Olive not priviledges of outward ordinances but righteousness Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides which I shall reply to He begins with questions 1. â—ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges onely Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces though some were of outward priviledges And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to pâ—rtake of the fatness of the root onely in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the ingraffed Abraham was not a natural Father to the ingraffed branches they descended not from him by natural generation nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the ingraffed Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithfull Gentiles and they his seed spiritually but so he was not â—o the Jews broken off nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree as it notes the Church of true believers or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17 nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it but the Gentiles were nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet in the first part of this Review sect 10. He tels me further It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmony between them and example conveyed nothing here is a conveyance of fatness Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root for it is a metaphor but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing and if there were harmony between a Father and â—n exemplary cause though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness but as an example there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause though it convey nothing but as an example Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say the ingraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fulness of Abraham as an example That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17 they had not from him as a natural father nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed nor do the ingraffed branches ever become natuâ—al branches though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews who were natural branches What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection that if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old
Servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined and it is shewed that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt covenant Sect. 5. Acts 2.38 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between iâ— and â—aptizability Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josiaâ— Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism â—om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered Sect. 7. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize Sect. 8. Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to bee of the visible Church Christian. Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship intitles them not to baptism Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justifie infant baptism and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shewed to be null Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham Mr. Brinsley Mr. Hall and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined and it is shewed that interest in the covenant did not intitle to circumcision nor is it proved it doth now to baptism Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons the Assembly's and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed Sect. 19. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind faed ch 42. sect 3. Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Reviewâ—gainst â—gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and seal are vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic fâ—d ch 37 43. Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch 2. part 1 of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain and mine justified Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between Covenant interest and Baptism right and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39 in his Exercitation ch 5. are considered Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self-justitiaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vind faed ch 26. Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abrahams seed and in Covenant is shewed Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54 55. 19.9 Joh 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 1â— 29. 4.28 Rom 9.6 7 8. Matth 3.9 that the seed of Abraham to whom the proâ—ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are onely true believers oâ— elect persons Sect. 29. The allegaâ—ion of Rom. 9 6.7 8. Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical belongâ— are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic faed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Eâ—ercitation ch 6. Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion the ambiguity of which is shewed Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace and the several sealings of them Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part 4. sect 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing are made good against Mr. Marshal and Mâ— Blake Sect. 33. That it is no error as Mr. Baxter calls it but a truth that the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism Sect. 35. My speech about Gods sealing to none but believers is cleered from Mr. Baxters objections Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth nor the Church as civil corporations Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace Sect. â—7 That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an external priviledge of visible Churchmembership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. Marshal asserts Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic sect 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external priviledges of the Covenant of grace are refeâ—led Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect 4th of the same chapter whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect 5. of the same ch shewing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in Gods Covenant is not the rule of baptizing Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect 7â—h of the same ch shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external interest therein Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th sect of the same ch in which
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
to be meant onely of those that were capable of the act v. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God So that it is not ment of those that are uncapable of so loving And after A new heart is given to the elect onely By this doctrin you feign a new heart not to be proper to the elect which is contrary to all the Anti-arminians that I know of Out of which it plainly appears that Deut. 30.6 Speaks not of an external privilege but a spiritual grace proper to the elect nor can be meant of the seed of believers in their infant staâ—e but in their adult In the text Jsai 44.2 3. speaking of Gods pouring his spirit on the seed of Jacob his servant And Ieshrim whom he had chosen whom he bids not to fear and his blessing on his off-spring and that they shall spring up as amongst the grass c. the terms Jacob and Jeshurim are taken not personally for it were in vain to bid Jacob dead long before not to fear but Collectively either for the nation of Israel or the church of God called the Jsrael of God Gal. 6.16 In the former acception the seed and off-spring must be ment of the children of Israel that is the Israelites by natural generation and then the sense is as Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on that text my spirit that is my blessing the one expoundeth the other whereby they and their state should thrive and flourish and mulâ—iply and increase that had been almost clean exhaust and exceedingly impaired in a manner beyond al hopes of recovery before ch 26.19 Ezek. 37.3 11 14. So of their land ch 32.15 and of their â—eed ch 61.9 He followeth still the comparison taken from grounds well watered as ch 58.11 and the seed sown in soil ch 32.10 In the latter 〈◊〉 he it is a type oâ— that spiritual growth and increase of Gods church and the members 〈◊〉 under the Messiah by the graces and comfortâ— oâ— his spirit Acts. 9.31 Eâ—hes 4.12.15 Col. 2.19.2 â—et 3.18 Sâ—e ch 2â— 6 and 37 3â— and 61.9.21 Take it either way it makes noâ—hiâ—g for aâ— external vissible privilege from age to age belonging to the natural seed even o◠〈◊〉 believers but in the first acception it nâ—â—es a future multiplying of the Jewes then much wastâ—d in the laâ—ter spiritual graces and comforts to 〈…〉 And for the last tâ—xt Ames Coroâ— Acts. 5 c. 2â— versum vicesimum quem in hanc partem Remonstrantes trahunt in alteran partâ—m accipit Apostolus Paulus Rom. 11.27 promissionem absolutâ—m electorum propriam in eo Contineri manifestis verbis confirmans Extermâ—n nihil sonâ—t spiritus meus qui est in 〈◊〉 â—eminis etiam inculcatio solos electos â—â—â—caciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc citulum interpretante Rom. 9. â— Gal 3.16 4.28 Mr. Gataker annot on Esai 59 21. thy seed the faithful the seed according to the promise Deut. 30.6 Rom. 9.6 8 Gal. 3.16.29 Se Dr. Owen of Perseverance ch 3. Sect. 41. ch 4. Sect. 3. ch 5. Sect. 9. ch 7. Sect. 23. And for what Mr M counts absurd I yeild iâ— that my answer cuts off Isaac's and Iacob's natural posterity from these promises except they be elect And as for Mr. M. deprehending me in absurdity and trifling such as I cenceive in Mr. Cottonsâ— words I tell him that his discourse runs upon a mistake of my words and meaning which he doth almost in every thing he repeaâ—s of mâ—nâ— and censuâ—es out of hast to frame his book as I am willing to conceive For where do I say that which he ascribes to me and from which he would infer like triflinâ— and absurdity as was in Mr. Cottons speech that God made this promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations And yet if I had said it such trifâ—ing as Mr. Cotton used would not have followâ—d on those words ascribed to me unless I had said also that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were put for every believer and â—heir seed had been meant in â—hat proposition ascribed to me of their spirituall seed by faith And for the close of that discourse in which he tells me Thus by your own argument you cut off all the Jewes but such as were elect and inwardly holy as much as you do the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges I say Mr. M. fathers on me his own brats first a proposition I deliver not then an argument which was none of mine as he makes it and then a conclusion I never owned nor would follow on that proposition or that argument he would father on me For if it were granted that I asserted that God promised to Abrahaham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations and that my reasoning on Mr. Cottons words would prove this proposition must be meant onely of the elect and inwardly holy as Mr. M. falsly imagines I do not cut off the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges unless I had said the elect Jewes or Gentiles onely had visible communion in externall privileges by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 whereas I never said that externall privileges as v. 9. of the initiall seal of Circumcision was proper to the elect and inwardly holy or derived it from the promise Gen. 17.7 but onely from the command v. 9.10 SECT XXXVIII Animadversions on the third Chapter of the first part of Mr. T. Cobbeâ—s Jusâ—â— Vindic. Sect. 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church-Covenant and externall privileges of the covenant of grace are refelled TO how little purpose Mr. M. hath alleged the promise Gen. 17 7. hath been considered I shall now view what Mr Cobbeâ— Just. Vindic. part 1. â—hap 3. brings for his doctrine of federal holiness of Church-members children from thence First he begins Sect. 1. with certain distinctions The Covenant of grace saith he is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visile politicall Church covenant if not explicite yet implicite We are to consider this place Gen. 17. not so much in the former as the later sense God making of it with ference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21. albeit at present it be to be contained in Abrahams own family whence also he ordaineth an initiatory seal and way of restipulation to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively and as members thereof distributively they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another Hence then renewed Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. 30. 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16 8. Answer It had been well if Mr. C. had defined the covenant of grace in this sense and how it is feâ—cht from Gen. 17.7 that I
Evangelical grace contains a promise to a Gentile believere of the external privilege of an initial seal or external â—ight to outward ordinances to them and their natural seed and accordingly saith Pag. 41 The Covenant then of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as wel as Abrahams Covenant yea in that it 's the same with it Which conclusion in this sense were manifestly false for the Lord hath of purpose taken away such a Tabernacle according to Christs prediction Iohn 4.21 that there might be no distinction of Iewes and Gentiles all having one access by one Spirit to the Father Eph. 2.18 As for his proofs I intend not to construe every speech of Mr C. there being many of them if they be good sense yet very darke but onely shew the impertinency of his Texts to this purpose Leâ—i 26.11 1â— Containes a promise proper to the Isralites obeying God v as v 13 c. and shewes and it is a promise of that which is not now to be performed to us or setling his Tabernacle among us the Tabernacle and Temple being now taken away since Christs incarnation God hath setled no Tabernacle now among us but Christs body or heavens Iohn 2.21 Heb. 8.2 and 9.24 or the Câ—urch of God 1 Cor. 3.6 17. and 6.19 and his setling this Tabernacle or Temple is by saving grace hath no reference to ouâ—wâ—rd Church privileges such as Mr. C. means Revel 21.3 is a promise of something to be performed in the last time whether at the calling of the Jewes or after the judgment whatever it be it notes another thing than external right to outward ordinances common to elect and Reprobate though it be expressed by a terme illusive to the material Tabernacle of the Jews Ephes. 2.11 12. It is said the Gentiles were without God in the world after their Conversion not because their children wanted an external right to an initial seal for Cornelius the Centurions children and such Proselytes of the gate wanted such a right and yet were not without God in the world but because they knew not the true God and his will concerning them that believe in Christ Piscat Analys loci or or worshiped not the true God after his will as the new Annot. even as Galat. 4.8 the Galatians before their Conversion are said not to have known God but to do service to them that by nature were not Gods Exod. 29.45 is a promise to the Israelites whom he brought out of Egypt v. 46. and from whom he had sanctified Aâ—ron and his sons Revel 21.4 as v. 3. is neither mâ—â—nt of ouâ—ward ordinances nor of an estaâ—e which is yet pertaining to the godly who are still under persecutions Levit 26.41 42 45. Certain promises of restoring the Israelites from Captivity and bringing them back to Canaan as v. 43 44. shew Zech. 9.11 whether meant of temporal deliverance or spiritual it is another thing than outward ordinances in the former sense it is proper to the Jewes carried to Babylon in the latter to the elect onely The like may be â—aid of Gen. 17.5.5.8 Psal. 111.5 Ierem. 33.31 51. likely v. 35.36 2 Cor. 6.16 18. Exod. 3.6 compared with Leviâ— 20.37 38. Heb â—1 6 In none of whâ—ch their 's a word of a right of Infants or meer professing parents to the visible administration by vertue of Gods Covenant Gen 17.7 to be Abraham and his seed nor doth it follow because God saith my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant Gen 17.13 therefore ouâ—ward ordinances and right to them as then are to be perpetual for then Circumcision of which those wods are spoken must conâ—inue still but raâ—her as Mr Lâ—y in his Annot on Gen 17.13 The Covenant may be said to be everlasting in respect of the spiritual part for which Circumcision was ordained and in respect of the long continuance of the outward ceremony If Ezek 37.25 27. be meant of the Jewes calling in the time yet to come and the same phrases be used yet that eiâ—hâ—r the promise should be meant v 25. of their childrens having â—n inâ—â—ial seal v 27. their having a material Tabernacle or Temple and outward ordinances as in the former time is but a vain conceit For then they must by the same reason have David the son of Iesse to be their king wherefore as by David is meant Christ typified by David so Circumcision is continued in the mortifying of sins Col. 2 11. and Gods placing his Tabernacle is as Piscat sch in Ezâ—h 37.27 The gratious inhabiting of God in the hearts of the elect 2 Cor 6.16 And if because in the new Testament such allusive phrases are found as are in the same language with those used in the old therefore such outward things are imported by them as were in the Law then outward privileges offices rites should be meant by presenting our bodies as Sacrifices being Preists to God c. It is in my apprehension a manifest Anti-evangelical and Iudaizing assertion which Mr C. hath that the Covenant of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as well as Abrahams Covenant yea itn that it is the same with it Sect 3 â—â— when he saith Conc 2. that the Covenant of grace Gen 17. is to be considered as invested with Church Covenant it is such an ambiguous expression as I know not well how to understand what I imagine to be the meaning I have refuted before in this Section Nor doth that which is here said that there is mention of this Covenant to be kept by them v 9. and further expressed in one particular thereof v 10. and that this was required as an initiatory sign incorporating them into one instituted Church body wherby they were made capable of further Church-ordinances and other duties which lay upon them virtually by it prove the Church-covenant he speaks of unless it be proved which I think he cannot do they did tie themselves thereby to walk with one another in holy Communion with subjection to their Superiors as a distinct visible political Church SECT XXXIX Animadversions on Sect 4. of the same Chapter whereby the Coâ—ceits of Mr. C about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect 4 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion that there is a bare external being in the Covenant of grace of persons who possibly never shall be saved But he no where shewed in Scripture either the term Covenaâ— of grace or the phrase of being in the Covenant of grace externally or inâ—ernally Did Mr C. and other Paedobaptists distinctly set down 1. What thâ—y mean by the Covenant of grace 2. What they mean by being exâ—ernally in the Covenant of grace whether it be any oâ—her thing than to be Baptized or Circumcised and what it is distinct from one of these or Title to one of them 3. By what act â—t is that a person is externally in the Covenant of grace whether Gods or
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ— the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their 's weakness is nothing The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace and implicit calling and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit or faith or profession of faith which are things that have no Scripture grounds The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation that it upholds a national Church â—e puts off only thus He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10 11 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22 of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church it cannot be denied but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members and by consequent the whole nation elder and â—onger are in the Church Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not SECT XLII Animadversions on Sect. 7 of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C sets down this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant in respect of external interest therein In which as almost in all his writings about this point there 's much ambiguity He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest nor what he means by the Covenant of grace what promise they are under nor how they are under it Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it nor what is the external interest therein which they have nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein and not with respect to internal interest For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 have this privilege that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised But I know not how it comes to pass this author either affects or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant seal Church-seed c. And not to explain his conclusions afore
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
he to be circumcised and therefore the seal follows not the covenant but the command even where the promise goes before What he adds Else what had become of them if they had died then in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good Rom. 9.6 Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation or about the case of famales or still-born infants Surely he would say God supplies that without means which he bestowes on others by ordinary means and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision To what purpose Rom. 9.6 comes in here I know not This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming To the objection with the Jews the Church and State were the same but not so now Mr. C. thus writes Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order He then kept them severall paling in the Civill State with the Judicials with which the Church as such dealt not but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and word onely in their own Sphears The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers or intruding upon Civil Officers as such as Josh. 9. 16.1 2 Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred 2 Chron. 17.11 Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God the Church was not one body and the State another but all the same persons were of the Church who were members of the Common-wealth he that had the right of a Iew had the right of a Church-member nor were any taken in or cast out of the one but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion but good order was setled kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall or paled in the Civill State with Judicials by which it was divided from the Church In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea as well as between stroak and stroak Deut. 17.8 9. Eli Samuel Iehoiadah judged Israel managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service Nor do I know any such Iudicials but that they did belong to the Church or Priests who were Iudges as well as to the Civill State that is the Princes As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church or Officers of the Church that is Priests and Levits wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word Scandals though we find Princes deposing Priests It is true Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onely in their own Sphears And so had Princes and Souldiers but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew acted Ecclesiastically in their places he mean any other than the Priests and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting the taking cognizance of moral evils and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill I must confess I find not either such Assembly or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord 2 Chro. 19.11 that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct the one in one sort of matters the other in the other As in a Parliament Senate or Council of Lords Bishops Lawyers Souldiers though they sit and act together yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem he instructs them whom they should have there for their help according to the law Deut. 17 8 9 c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum to resolve him in this point What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all serves not Mr C his turn unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace I do not believe What he saith touching Baptism that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts and that it sealeth an infants present federall grace and unto future grace likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally covenant-grace principally is meer fancy without any Scripture which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall of the sealing one grace principally another less principally of sealing an infants present federall grace and unto future grace of baptism sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion That the covenant-interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons SECT XLIV Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25.26 and other places are examined Answ IN my Examen page 51. I said They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not onely to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these add to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed And page 122. It is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace That God wil be
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al gospel-Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
then sealed but as they were Abrahams spiriâ—ual and Church-seed Answer We sever not the subject parties taken into Covenant consideration as Mr. C. speaks but distinguish them Nor do we leave out that Noâ—ation of Seed scil in their generations but take it in as I have said the Proselytes if believers as Abraham they are his seed by Faith if noâ— they are not 〈◊〉 seed according to Scripture Abrahams Church-Seed is a new-devised term without Scripture Yet the proselytes and their chiâ—dren were to be circumcised by vertue of the command whether they had any part in the covenant or not as being in his house though not of his seed And if by Gods solemnly enjoyning a Seal to a Blank or a seal to no Covenant of his â—e meant that circumcision of the Proselytes was a token of that Covenant which was no covenant of Gods I deny it it was a Covenant of Gods in which he made many promises it was not a token of a Covenant that assured nothing as a paper in which noâ—hing is written which we call a Blank there were promises and persons specified in the covenant But if the meaning be this That God solemnly enjoyned that such should be circumcised to whom no promise was made in that Covenant I grant it true Ishmael c. and count it no absurdity to say God in that sense did solemnly enjoyn the Seal to be put to a Blank Circumcision in the Institution of it was a token or signe of the Covenant made with Abraham Rom. 4.11 to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith is said of no ones circumcision but Abrahams What Mr. C. means That it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith not so much Subjectivè as Objectivè Rom. 4. I understand not except this be his meaning that it did seal not so much the righteousness of faith to the persons circumcised as this truth That righteousness is by faith Being understood of Abrahams personall circumcision I concâ—ive it sealed both wayes of any other mans circumcision I find not the Apostle calling it the Seal of the righteousness of Faith But of Seals and sealing I have spoken sufficiently in sundry Sections before I shall not contend about that passage That the Baptism of Simon Magus was in the nature of it and Gods institution a visible Seal of the most spirituall part of the covenant and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant my former explication being remembred And I take it as true which next followes It is peculiar to the elect to be in the covenant in respect of the participation of the saving efficacy of it Rom. 9.6 7 8. And hence observe that none but the elect are rightly said to be in the covenant of grace For none are in the covenant of grace but they to whom it is made for what is it to be in the covenant but to have it made to him So the Directory so Rom. 9.8 But they to whom the covenant of grace is made are the elect onely The covenant of grace is the covenant of Saving grace Heb. 8.10 11 10.16 Rom. 11.26 1 Cor. 11.25 Heb. 13.20 of Regeneration Iustification c. But that is made onely to the Elect Ergo. The Minor is proved thus They to whom it is made they have the saving efficacy otherwise God should make it and not perform it and so his Word fall which is not to be granted But the elect onely have the saving efficacie as Mr. C. conâ—esseth Ergo. I deny not Reprobates may in respect of their own profession be said to be externally in the covenant of grace in appearance to meâ— in the face of the visible Church but not in respect of Gods promise and before him which they say is sealed in the Sacrament Nor do I deny the appointment of God to be to circumcise or baptize Reprobates as well as elect and that the nature of these ordinances is the same on both sorts though the use and efficacy in part be various Nor do I deny the covenant with Abraham one yet hold it is mixt which is proved from the words of Mr C. here in that it holds forth variety of covenant-blessings some more common to all and some more peculiar to a few But I deny the Gospel doth hold forth blessing common to any other than the godly It is true there are promises of this life 1 Tim. 4.8 1 Cor. 3.22 Mark 10.30 and Reprobates have some such outward things as the elect as cloaths aiâ—e life but not as blessings from the Gospel neither sanctified in the same manner nor upon the sâ—me tenure As for circumcision it was the covenant metonymically onely and did confirm the whole covenant sacramentally to elect and reprobate Mr. C. yet adds That if that sort of persons to wit Infants or Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which it 's said onely persons come to be Abrahams seed it 's enough to prove that Gentile inchurched believers infants are the the seed of Abraham But that is fully proved from Gal. 3.7.6.9.16.27 28 29. where by Christ is meant Christ mysticall that is Christ with his Body the Church as 1 Cor. 12.13 If then Infants be not Abrahams seed then are they not members of Christ nor of the invisible Church and so are without salvatiâ—n To which I answer That I never denied that elect infants were Abrahams spirituall seed nor said onely by actuall faith persons are Abrahams spiritual seed but grant that some infants are Abrahams spirituall seed whether by election onely or by seed of faiâ—h or by such a special secret work as is unknown to us like Jacobs struggling in the womb and taking hold on his brothers heel or John Baptists leaping in the womb of his mother for joy and so are of the body of Christ and members of the invisible Church and thereby saved But I deny that infants of Gentile believers whether elect or not are Abrahams spiritual seed and in that respect in the covenant of grace or promise of God being their God and thereby admitted to baptism But Mr. C. adds I say to exclude that sort of persons scil believers Infants from being a part of the visible-visible-church in generaâ— is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individual Infants and each of them which came of such inchurched parents not to be also parâ—s of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation In respect to the ordinary course thereoâ— and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to be saved in as is only extraordinary ordinarily they are not to be supposed to be saved or at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in an ordinary way any Pagans or
Turkes out of the visible Church or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should be saved yet God may and somtimes doth and will have some souls brought on to him thence and even from amongst Mahometans c. But all will yeild I suppose that this is an extraordinary case and so crosseth not that rule that without even the visiâ—le Church there is no salvation scil Taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times and with all to the ordinary course and wâ—y of attaining unto salvation Ans. Mr. C. his drift I conceive is to prove that if Infants of believers be not visible Church-members they have no ordinary state and way of salvation and that the maxime is true that out of the visible Church in reference to ordinary times and withal to the ordinary course and way of attainining unto salvation there is no salvation Against which I oppose that if the maxim out of the Church there is no salâ—aâ—ion be understood of the visible Church the ordinary state way of salvation it will as well concern Mr. C. to shew how children of believâ—rs endued with a reasonable soul and humane body yet still-born or dying in their mothers womb with her and never born are provided for an ordinary way of salvation as wel as for us concerning Infants born alive I suppose they will not say infants dying in their mothers womb and there buried and never brought to light are visible members of the Church who were never visible men nor that they are to be baptized What ordinary way state of salvation external have they more than Mahometanes If it be said they have election the vertue of Christs death the promise of God according to election the secret work of the spirit I grant it and the same may be said of Infants living nor can it be certainly and without doubt denied of Papists and Mâ—homeâ—aâ—s infants Though I confess it is far more probable that oridnarily God gives these means to Infants of believers whether Churched or unchurched than to the Infants of others and rather to the Infants of true believers than 〈◊〉 professors of faith Yet I dare not determine certainly thereof because of the express resolution of the Apostle Rom. 9. concerning Ishmael and Esau and his reference thence v. 15 16 18 20 21 22. And if he count â—e certain there is no salvation out of the visible Church in an ordinary way there being no ordinary way to estate Infants in the visible church which I grant not as well as he but baptism then he doth as good as affirm that ordinarily no infant is saved without baptism which is either the Popish tenent or not much shorâ— of it This will the more urge M. C. because he limits the promise to Abrahams visible Church-seed in reference to Church-covenant and I suppâ—se they of N. E. baptize not infants of parents not inchurched what ordinary way of salvation have children of believers not inchurched who are not accounted visible Church members when their parents were not And the like must be said of the children of excommunicate persons of uncertain originall Apostates who are with them or some of them no visible Church-members how are they in the visible Church and what provision is for them For my part I conceive that if the matter be impartially considered I think their doctrine is pressed with the like difficulty that mine is I affirm that believers infants and infants of unbelievers if elect are certainly saved ordinarily that is according to the constant course of Gods purpose by vertue of Gods pâ—omise Christs death and the Spirits secret working though they be neither baptized nor are visible Church-members and I think they can say no more concerning infants of believers dying with the mother in the womb and never brought to light which is no unuâ—uall thing I say that it is very probable because of generall indefinite promises and frequent experience that the infants of believing parents are eâ—ect when the infants of Infidels are not Yet I cannot affirm they are elect because the promises are not universall to every believers infants yea if they were as Pedobaptists would have them universall in respect of externall privileges which is not true yet rhere could be no certainty of election and salvation inferred thence And therefore though there be a better ground of hope of the salvation of a believers infant than others yet in a question concerning â—he certainâ—y of the event whether they are saved or no I must suspend my judgement and leave it to Gods secret will having no rule revealed whereby to determine it If Mr. C. assure any more I conceive he wiil deceive himself and others Dr. Twiss Animadvers in Corvin pag. 35. saith thus Ad hâ—c fortè in ea sententia sunt nostri Theologi ut propositum Dei de salvandis fidelium liberis in infantili aetate morientibus haud liquido satis demonstrari in sacris literis Et sanè non diffiteor exitia hujus rei suppeditari nobis ex sacris liâ—eris indiâ—iâ— quibus tamen acquiescimus But Mr C. adds Such then as exclude all Infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spiritual seed from covenant and Church-estate they put them in the Pagans Gentiâ—es estate 〈◊〉 of which Paul speakes who being they and others strangers from the promise and covenants and from the visible Church they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world and so under the Divel the God of the world and in an hopeless estate neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them they are without hope in regard at least of any ordinary way or mean of salvation Eph. 2.11 12. Answ. I exclude not all infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spirituall seed from Covenant and Church-estate meaning this of being Abrahams spiritual seed and included in the covenant of grace and invisible Church which alone can make God to be their God estate them in Christ be the ground of a certain hope of their salvation and that according to an ordinary way They that teach them to be visible Church-members and baptize them cannot give parents a grounded certain infallible hope of salvation without this ordinary way I assen nor can they give more assurance of that way of Baptism than may be given without it baptism not saving without the answer of a good conscience towards God 1 Pet. 3.21 Neither that nor their imaginary visible Church-membership assuring that they are not under the Divel nor without God in the world And if they do they do it without Scipture and experience doth too often refute them Mr C goâ—s on Nor let it seem grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of â—ame and worth in the Church have as it seemeth urged that in case of such an exclusion of believers children they are
came to free his whole Church from that visible Church-membership it had then by natural descent and consequently to alter the visible Church membership of infants into a more perfect way by setting up a Church throughout the world not by carnal descent in one nation but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ through the preâ—ching of the Gospel And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law it 's bondage and Tutorage whether it like him or not sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means besides that of Circumcision and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed 3. Yet further saith he when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law and the bondage of minority is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before and hath advanced us in his family as the Heir at age is advanced And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family Christs Church is his family and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family Why may he not as well say that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state and made members of a far better Church then that particular Church of the Jews was Answ. It is true Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before and that is the reason why infants are left out I say not cast out of his visible Church For whereas the particular Church of the Jews in which alone infants were visible Church-members was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God and was by descent of birth and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual consisting onely of them who owned Christ as their Lord and therefore till infants do so they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle it being agreeable to his scope if they will speak rightly And the body of the Jewish nation I mean the greatest or most considerable part if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized their children being not baptized till they professed had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared Mr. B. adds 4. And if any yet say that it is not the infants but onely the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state is not this text plain against him For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age yet I can prove that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity Act. 3. last And now judge I pray whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership Answ. That which I say is that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved a Church of a better constitution is by God erected and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state that is from carnal to spiritual which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian till they be disciples or believers and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law which were their bondage Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed For it follows not redemption is extended to those that were under the Law therefore to each individual or to each species or age the term being indefinite and the speech true if any under the Law and those of one species or age be redeemed as in like sort when God is said to choose the poor the weak things of this world this proves not universal election of the poor or weak sith the terms being indefinite they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law all are under the Law Ergo To which I answered by denying the minor producing Gal. 4.21 Rom. 6.14 c. though I might hâ—ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law it will follow that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew for they were under the Law and then it will follow thaâ— the Jews were universally redeemed that they might reâ—eive the adoption of sons And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5 concerning which besides what I have said before Sect. 33 34 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings Provoc provocatus in answer to Boatman ch 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption conditional Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditional are notions in Divinity I do not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's plaâ—e as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities Acts 3. last in the sense he can prove as he thinks that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onely for universal redemption conditionally but also for universal conversion conditionally Which if true then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity Acts 3.26 conditionally and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will he must hold universal grace of conversion and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will which is indeed the venome of Arminianism
containing questions and those not touching the argument instead of answers and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities and else-where who are understanding unbyassed men if there be any yea to any that have studied Logick to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section and answered his Letters to me to which I hasten SECT LII It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now 1. I Thus argue If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent The consequent of the major I think will not be denied For supposing there were infants even of Christians and an Ordâ—nance before that the infants of the godly should be visible church members and yet no part or members then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance if there were such a one Now that the antecedent is true I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further But the antecedent is true Ergo. That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth is proved by these arguments 1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water pag 342. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so it hath one common baptism And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13 Eph. 5.25 26. Eph. 4.5 out of which this proposition may be proved But no infants were to be baptised This is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 5 c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church 2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13 is the visible Church pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body c. pag 39. What is the Church Is it not the body of Christ The same he confirms pag. 60.318 from 1 Cor. 12.13 which he proves to be meant of the visible Church and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24 Ephes. 1.22 23. that the Church is the body of Christ and so the visible Church is his visible body But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13 all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit namely in the cup of the Lâ—rds supper Diodati annot in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi caenae dominicae piscat analys 1 Cor. 12.13 Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur Dicson expos Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13 ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus idem etiam esse intelligatur Beza annot in 1 Cor. 12.13 Calicem quoqâ—e Domini in hanc spem bibimus Grot. annot in locum But no infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink the cup in the Lords supper Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread if they did they must do so still be admitted to the Lords supper Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5 The whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith Ergo. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the believers the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church or mention of the whole Church the number of believers or disciples in the new Testament But infants are left out of that number in all places in the new Testament Ergo. The major is evident of it self For as we know who was in the church by their mention so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages which make an enumeration or reckoning of all there being no other way to know who were in or out and if this be not true the speeches are false which mention all the whole the multitude as the full number if they were not so The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned Acts 1.15 Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christs preaching and pains bestowed in that city Let but Joh. 2.23 3.2 4.1 Mar. 3.8 Joh. 7.31 8.30 11.28 45. 12.19 42. and divers other places be well weighed and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all who were all Galileans and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me considering the narration all along â—he chapter that v. 4 6. they are said to come together go to mount Olivet and then to return to Jerusalem and their action noted with special notice of some v. 13 14. and then next v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration onely of men of note but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean Mark 14.70 doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ Christs preaching most in Galilee his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see
but hereby is not proved that any infants were visible Churchmembers but in the Congregation of Israel but rather the contrary Sith they were become Jews that is of the Congregation of Israel 8. Saith Mr. B. The scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abrahams successors and yet were to Circumcise their children as Churchmembers Answ. Though they were from under the Government of Abrahams successor in respect of all power and command yet they were under their Government so far as they were permitted the exercise of the Mosaick Lawes and were of the Congregation of Israel and were Circumcised as members thereof and therefore no infants yet proved visible Church-members out of that Congregation 9. Saith Mr. B. When Jonas preached to Ninive it was all the race of man among them without exception from the greatest to the least that was to fast and joyn in the humiliation Ergo all even infants as well as others were to partake of the remission If you say the beasts were to fast too I answer as they were capable in their kinde of part of the curse so were they of part of the benefit but their capacity was not as mans They fasted to manifest mans humiliation And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kinde no wonder if infants sped the better in theirs and according to their capacities and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin Answ. All this is quite from the business for it proves not that either the aged or the infants were visible Churchmembers out of the Congregation of Israel If the fasting prove the visible Churchmembership it proves the visible Churchmembership of the beasts as well as the infant-men If the repentance bee alledged to prove it I hardly think such a sudden quickly past repentance will prove any of them visible Churchmembers of Christ any more then the Mariners prayer fear sacrificing making vowes Jonah 1.14.6 If it do yet it proves onely the aged who turned from their evil way Jonah 3.10 to be visible Churchmembers there 's no proof yet of an infants visible Churchmembership out of the Congregation of Israel 10. Saith Mr. B. What I have said of Sem and many others and their posterity already I shall not here again repeat and more will be said anon to the following questions Answ. What is said shall be answered in its place Mr. B. goes on thus The 2d proposition to be proved is that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel But this you did heretofore acknowledge and therefore I suppose will not now deny I suppose it past controversie between us 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ Heb. 11.26 and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ and searched diligently and prophesied of the grace to come and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time and testifying before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1.10 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ and members of the body of Christ and given for the edification of that body Though it was revealed to them that the higher privigledes of the Church after the comming of Christ were not for them but for us 1 Pet. 1.12 2. I suppose it agreed on also between us that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ and therefore either infants were members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods institution Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two but one Church For Moses was Christs Usher and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ And though the foolish Jewes by mis-understanding them made a separation and made Moses Disciples to bee separate from Christs Disciples and so set up the alone shadowes of things to come yet the body is all of Christ Col. 2.17 and by so doing they violated Gods institution and unchurcht themselves 3. I suppose it agreed also that Christs Church is but one and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible yet make up one body 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal Though the Church was more eminently called Catholike when the wall of separation was taken down But I remember I have proved this in my Book part 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now Answ. I grant as I did heretofore that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel or rather in that they were of the Congregation of Israel nor do I deny that Christ had then a Church on earth nor that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ. But as for the third though I grant that Christs invisible Church is but one by unity of the same spirit and faith and that the visible Church is but one in some respect namely in respect of the profession oâ— the same faith and hope in Christ yet they are not so one as that whoever is a visible member of one particular Church is a member of each particular Church and though I yeild that whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal yet it follows not which is it that Mr. B. drives at and vainly talks of his proving it elsewhere as will be shewed hereafter that every one who was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church in that hee was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church As for instance Cornelius and his house who feared God Acts 10.2 were visible members of that particular Church of his house and so of the universal yet were not visible members of the particular Church Jewish as may bee proved from their uncircumcision and shunning as unclean by the Jews Acts 10. 11.3 The reason is manifest For the universal hath not a distinct existence from the parts nor is any part existing in another part because it is part of the whole as the finger is not in every part of the body because it is in the body in that it is in the hand which is a part And therefore Mr. Bs. arguing which he confides so much in part 1. ch 20. of plain Script c. will appear to be vain that because infants
the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the infant seed of them out of Gods Church And wel they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Sem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal. 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Sem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Answ. I grant that not onely the person of Shem but his posterity were blessed nor do I deny God was their God nor that their infant seed was in Gods Church But this doth not prove their visible Churchmembership in infancy but rather their invisible Churchmemship for that is imported by the phrase of being their God as Mr. Ainsworths exposition intimates God was God to Jacob in his mothers womb yet he was not then a visible but an invisible Church-member Moreover saith Mr. B. in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimatâ—â— First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Sem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that pâ—ople begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Sem now they were the tents of Sem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have tâ—e same sort of members or materials and therefore infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Sems tents had infant Churchmembers for the Jewes Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Sems tents Ergo. Answ. That the tents of Sem note the Jewish people is not improbable But then it is as certain that they are so called not from what they were in Sems days at least not what they were when Noah prophesied but what they were to be afterwards when they were formed to be a peculiar people and they are Sems tents because they descended from him And this is clear even from what Mr. B. and all grant that what is here said was accomplished in the posterity of Sem Japhet and Cham. And therefore it followes not that if the Jewish people had infants Churchmembers visible it must be so in Sems dayes because they are termed Sems tents sith they are so termed from their discent not from the state of the Church in Sems time Nevertheless if it bee granted that Sems tents are the Church of God in Sems family in his days it will rather prove it to note the invisible Church then the visible For the dwelling in the tents of Sem in Mr. Bs. and their sense whom he follows is by faith and so the tents of Sem must note the invisible Church of true believers of whom God is God as he was of Sem the Israel of God as they are termed Gal. 6.16 not the Jewish Church visible and they were joyned by perswasion and therefore not infants who were to dwell in Sems tents and consequently infants visible Churchmembership is not hence proved And to Mr. Bs. argument I answer by granting the conclusion if by Sems tents be meant the invisible Church if the Jewish people the minor is denied He goes on thus Yet further let it here bee noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applieth the word dwell to Japhet then to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleered at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Sem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joint heyrâ— and of the same body and joint partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition wall being broken down c. Eph. 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Sems posterity should bee cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Sems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Sems infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his infant seed bee cast or left out So that here is a promise of infant Churchmembership unto the Gentiles in these words Answ. For my part for ought I yet discern Mr. Nicholas Fuller his exposition in his â—d Book of his Miscellanies Theological ch 4. seems more right then that which Mr. B. and many other Expositors follow to wit thus God shall enlaâ—ge the coasts of the posterity of Japhet in Asia Europe and America and God shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is Christ or God manifested in the flesh shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is among the Jews being of their stock as it is John 1.14 and Canaan shall be servant to the Israelites and the posterity of Japhet as the Canaanites Egyptians Carthaginians and other people of Cham have been being conquered by Joshua Alexander the great the Romans and other people Nor do I see how Mr. Bs. interpretation can be right sith when Japhet was perswaded to dwell in Sems tents Chams posterity also were perswaded and Canaan was no more a servant in a spiritual sense no nor so much as Sems tents the Jewish people nor were the Gentiles perswaded to dwell in Sems tents that is in the Jewish Church visible but it was quite dissolved and they a separate Church from them And therefore it is most manifestly false that the children of Japhet must dwell in Sems tents that is the same visible Church Jewish and therefore the inference is wrong there are infant visible members in the Gentile Church Christian yea sith according to Mr. Bs. own exposition the Gentiles were by the perswasion of the Gospel as it is Ephes. 3.6 of the same body none of the Gentiles were of the same body but those who were perswaded by the Gospel which cannot be said of infants and therefore the contrary follow from Mr. Bs. own exposition that infants were not to be visible Christian Churchmembers SECT LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22. WE come next saith Mr. B. to the promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of infants to be members of the
idolatry the other proves the same to have been the fate of Israel for the same sin but neither Mr. Bs. universal proposition So that hitherto Mr. B. hath proved nothing He applies his unproved dictates thus Now you know there were many Jews that did believe and did not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more Now how then can thâ—se or their infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Answ. 1. God may in justice do it because he is a Soveraign Lord who is no debtor to any Rom. 11.34 35 36. 2. God may in justice do it for the parents sins some ages before or the national sin of the Jews in rejecting Christ might be a just cause for God to break off all infants Churchmembership being onely a consequent of the taking the Hebrew nation for his people though some parents believed in common punishments and changes the obedience of some few not exempting them and theirs from them as in the Babylonish captivity it happened for Manasseh his sin notwithstanding Josiahs reformation 2 Kings 23.26 Mr. B. goes â—n I am brief in this because Mr. T. doth not deny it But that which he answereth is that It is in mercy for their good I prove the contrary plainly thus It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater in the stead of it But here is no greater mercy given to infants in the stead of Churchmembership therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked The major Mr. T. doth not deny and I will fully tell you all that he saith to the minor 1. In his Dispute he answered that Churchmembership of infants was revoked in mercy for their good and that they had a greater mercy in stead of it And what do you think is that greater mercy Why it is Christ come in the flesh I confess it amazeth me to see the power of errour how it can both at once bereave the understanding of ordinary light and the conscience of tenderness or one of these at least Is it possible that the judgement of such a man as Mr. T. can take this for a satisfactory answer or his conscience give him leave to deny Churchmembership to all infants in the world and to raise a Schisme in a poor distressed Church and to charge their own bloud on the heads of his people that yeeld not to him and all upon such lamentable grounds as these Answ. 1. I deny that now which I did not deny in the Dispute neither understanding whereto Mr. Bs. argument tended nor what his opinion was in the matter of his argument nor having competent time to consider his words 2. I was somewhat amazed at first reading at Mr. Bs. dealing with me who had so good an opinion of his godliness and tenderness of consciences and his pretences of friendliness that if a man had sworn to me before he printed that he would have thus abused and accused me so falsly I should not have believed it But I see no hopes of any justice from such an intemperate Zelot for his opinion nor any right understanding of me or any thing I say or do from one so prejudiced superficial in his consideration of things yet peremptory and rash in his determinations as Mr. B. is Suppose I had answered them as weakly as Mr. B. imagines I did yet a littâ—e experience might have told him that it might have commen from other causes then the power of errour bereaving at once my understanding of ordinary light and my conscience of tenderness Such censures if there were no more shew Mr. B. was carried with intemperate heat in his writing a thing which certainly corrupts a mans judgement and maâ—è verum examinat omnis corruptus Judex To his accusations I answer It is false that I deny Churchmembership to all the infants in the world that I raise a Schism in a poor distressed Church that I thretaen those that yeeld not to me and all upon the grounds he mentions which yet are not lamentable any otherwise then because they are no better heeded But to the argument The major I shall consider anon the minor is that which is under present consideration which I deny and avow what I then answered with this explication and amplification Infants visible Churchmembership was onely in the Hebrew nation The end of God was in taking that nation to be his visible people that there might be a fixed nation among whom and from whom Christ should be born To that end he would have them distinguished from other people by Circumcision by laws c. He would have their Tribes distinguished their inheritances fixed their genealogie certain this was the benefit of that nation the honour and mercy to the infants and others and God took it away after Christs comming as being useless it being to usher it in I mean the whole ordering of the Hebrew Church-membership and it was a greater mercy to the Church of God and thereby to the infants who had their Churchmembership onely a mercy before by consequence as a part of that people without any feeling or enjoyment of it till they came to riper age And this was a greater mercy then their former membership 1. in that they were freed from the yoke of the Law 2. Christ who was promised was a known person and revealed and accomplished the will of God concerning the salvation of hâ—s people Let 's view Mr. Bs. refutation 1. Saith he Was it ever heard before from the mouth of man that Christ succeeded churchmembership as a thing that was to give place for him Doth Christ cast any out of the Church onely that he may succeed them Can he prove that their churchmembership was a type of Christ that must cease when he was come Why doth he not prove it then from some Scripture or reason cannot we have a room in the body without being cast out at the comming of the head Are the head and members at such odds that one must give place and be gone when the other comes Why then is not the churchmembership of men and women to give place to Christs comming in the flesh Sure the nature of churchmembership is the same in both Why did the Apostles never speak of this among the types of Christ that did cease that all infants are put out of the Church or family of God that Christ may succeed as a greater mercy to them then their room in his Church and family Is not here comfort but by a silly comforter to all the Jewes themselves though they are broken off from the Church yet Christ is a greater mercy to them in stead of it Answ. Mr. B. keeps his wont of refuting me by frivolous questions and foolish scoffs in stead of solid arguments To them as they are I return these answers He himself ch 30. saith
The dedication of the firstâ—born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him and yet he can give no more Scripture or reason for it then I can for this that the Churchmembership of infants was but to endure till Christs comming in the flesh To omit what I have already argued in the 50 51 52. sections before in my apprehension the Apostle doth plainly teach Gal. 3.16 to the end that the Churchmembership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham continued onely till faith came that is till Christ was exhibited and believed on as already come in the flesh that now all are children of God Abrahams seed by faith that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile the Jews natural birth brings not him in the Church nor the Gentiles uncircumcision excludes him that so many as are admitted into the Church by Baptism do put on Christ and consequently the Churchmembership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth and there is no Churchmembership but by faith in Christ. And this I might further confirm from Gal. 5.6 Col. 2.11 12. 3.11 And to these Scriptures I add this reason The course that God took in severing the Jewish nation from other people circumcising the males keeping the distinction of tribes and the inheritances in the families and the genealogies so exactly till Christ came ordering the tax of Augustus at the time of Christs birth and after his ascension scattering the Jews out of their land overturning their Commonwealth confounding their pedigrees taking to himself another Church in another way by preaching the Gospel and baptizing believers and none else doth plainly evidence to me that infants Churchmembership was but an introduction type shadow fore-runner to Christs manifestation in the flesh and to cease as John Baptists office did when Christ was exhibited and fully manifested to the world And accordingly Mr. Bs. questions are answered the first that it was heard of before that upon the comming of Christ believers Church-membership was to succeed to birth-Churchmembership To the second that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them yet by his comming he alters Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith The third and fourth are answered by setting down my apprehension and the Scriptures and reason of it The fifth I answer affirmatively the sixth negatively The seventh that men and women are not Churchmembers now by birth any more then infants and in that respect the nature of Churchmembership is the same in both To the eighth the Apostle did speak of it in the places before cited To the ninth the silly comforter knows no reason why the Jews broken off should be comforted but thinks it was matter of comfort to the believing Jews that in stead of infants visible Churchmembership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy the body in stead of the shadow the Sun risen in stead of the Day-star Mr. B. goes on thus But let us consider a little what is the Church Is it not the body of Christ Even all the Church since Adams fall and the making of a new Covenant is one body of Christ Even the visible Church is his visible body as 1 Cor. 12. and many Scriptures fully shew therefore even the branches not bearing fruit are said to be in him that is in his visible body Joh. 14.1 2 3. Now doth Christ break off all infants from his body that he may come in the flesh to be a greater mercy to them What 's that but to be a greater mercy then himself who is the life and welfare of the body Answ. The invisible Church is all one body of Christ the visible hath had such differences that one part to wit those who feared God and prayed continually Acts 10 2. yet had no communion with the other but were counted unclean and shunned because uncircumcised Acts 11 2 3. The Church of the circumcised which was by natural birth is now broken off upon Christs comming and another Church by faith of all nations is raised Acts 10.34 35. in which infants are not till they believe who though they are of the invisible Church or body of Christ by election and invisible operation of the spirit yet are not of the visible till they profess faith in Christ as already come in the flesh who was the great mercy promised to Abraham Joh. 8.56 in which he rejoyced although a great part of his natural seed were broken off and this was a greater mercy then was before exhibited although then Christ was the life and welfare of the body Again saith Mr. B it seems by this Mr. T. thinks that excommunication is a great mercy If all the Jews infants had been excommunicate or cast out of the Church by God himself it were no more then Christ did in mercy never bringing them into any other Church in stead Answ. Nothing said by me gives any occasion to this imputation Excommunication if just I count a curse but the non taking of infants into the visible Church Christian hath nothing of a curse in it it being onely an act of God according to his Soveraignty who had liberty to appoint who should be of his Church who not Against this strange fiction saith Mr. B. I argued thus If ordinarily God shew not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it then it is not a greater mercy or for the parties greater good to be put out then to be in But ordinarily God sheweth not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it Therefore it is not for their greater good nor in greater mercy to be put out To this Mr. T. answered nothing Answ. What need I when I grant the conclusion Mr. B. makes a strange fiction of his own as if I thought excommunication to be cast out or put out of the Church a great mercy and held infants were excommunicated cast or put out of the Church Which is far from me or any thing I say who do not assert them put out by any judicial sentence but by a free act of Gods soveraignty left out for reasons best known to himself but in part revealed to us Mr. B. adds I argued also thus â—f those that are out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ then it is not to them a great mercy to be out of the Church But those out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ therefore it cannot be to them a greater mercy To this Mr. T. answered that it is a greater mercy to infants since Christ to be out of the Church then before to be in it and that they have as much assurance of
to be taken off it Answ. I grant it yet doubt whether the Church be termed so 1 Tim. 3.15 and not rather either the mystery of Godliness v. 16. as Cameron de Eccles. c. de Eccles. durati de Eccl. Const. or Timothy as Gataker Cinni lib. 2. c. 20. Again saith Mr. B. the Church visible is the visible body of Christ but it is no mercy to be separated from Christs body Answ. True yet it may be a mercy in respect of the yoke of the law not to be in the visible Church Jewish yea by accident it may be a mercy to be separated from a visible Church Christian as when the Church is tyrannous in its rule or unsound in the doctrine taught to it Again saith he the Church visible is Christs visible Kingdome But it is no mercy to be out of Christs Kingdome therefore it is no mercy to be out of the Church Answ. The same which was made to the former objection is to this Lastly saith Mr. B. Do but read all those hundred glorious things that are spoken of the City of God all those high praises that are given to the Jewish Church in Deut. and the Psalms and all the Scriptures who is like unto thee O Israel c. And then read all the far more glorious things that are spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ And if after this you can still believe that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church and never take them into the other and that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fiâ—lier save them out of his Church then in it I say if after reading the foresaid passages you can believe this for my part I give you up as forlorn and look upon your understandings in this as forsaken by God and not onely void of spiritual illumination but common reason and pray the Lord to save the understandings of all his people from such a plague and to rescue yours before you go further Answ. I say not that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church nor that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fitlier save them out of his Church then in it but that God never took them into his visible Church Christian and that Christs comming in the flesh is a mercy recompensing the visible Churchmembership Jewish by birth when God braâ—e off that people from the olive for their unbelief and that Christ can and doth as fitly save infants though not in the visible Church Christian as he did when they were in the visible Church Jewish and yet fear not Mr. Bs. direful omen and sad despair of my understanding but have as good hopes of mine and my followers understandings in this thing as of Mr. Bs. and his followers and leave it to the intelligent to judge whether we are void not onely of spiritual illumination but common reason I have read what is said of Israel and yet think it a mercy now not to bee a viâ—â—ble Churchmember in it no not though it were now as it was in the best state under David Solomon c. And I conceive Mr. B. hath read many hundreds of as glorious things spoken of Moses Law as of the Church and yet I think Mr. B. counts it a mercy now not to be under it I finde the glorious things spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ meant all or most of it as it contains that part which is the invisible Church of true believers or elect persons And I judge God hath dealt mercifully with infants if he put them into the invisible Church though hee put them not into the visible if not either their being in the visible benefits them not or aggravates their condemnation Mr. B. proceeds thus But let us see what Mr. T. answers to this in his Sermon which upon deliberation hee afterward preached to confute my arguments and therefore â—annoâ— lay the blame upon his unpreparedness And truly in my judgement he doth here plainly throw down his weapons and give up the whole cause though not directly confessing his errour he is not yet so happy I were best give you his own words lest I be thought to wrong him they are these As for those petty reasons if it be done it must bee in mercy or judgement I say in mercy in respect of the whole Catholike Church now Christ being come and wee haâ—ing a more spiritual churchstate then they had their churchstate was more carnal and fleshly and agreeable to their time of minority It is in mercy that it is taken away And as for that exception It cannot be taken away in mercy unless some priviledge be to them in stead of it We answer It is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge be to them So far Mr. Ts. words I confess I never heard a cause more plainly forsaken except a man should say flatly I have erred or I recant 1. He much altereth the terms of my argument as you may see by it before The argument is thus It can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken away from them except it be to give a greater in its stead But here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked or taken away To call these petty reasons is the onely strength of Mr. T. his answer For I pray you mark 1. Hee never denâ—ed the major proposition that it can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken from them except they may have a greater in stead He could not deny this with any shew of reason For otherwise if it be a mercy meerly to deprive the creature of mercy then wee shall turn hell into heaven and make it the greatest place of mercies because none are deprived of mercy so much as they no nor of this particular mercy for none are further removed from being members of the Church then the damned Answ. It is true finding the boastings concerning Mr. Bs. dispute Janu. 1. 1649. to be many after my return from Leimster to which place I was then designed and where I was Janu. 6. I did though without any copy of the disputation or arguments in writing which I could not obtain from Mr. B. as well as my memory could bear them away in the close of my Afternoons Sermon Jan. 13. at Bewdley recite and refute his arguments in the disputation Wherein it is true I was somewhat more deliberate then in the dispute yet for want of the arguments in writing I could not then give so full and exact an answer to his arguments as had been requisite nor perhaps shall now to this because Mr. B. doth not plainly set down though requested by me what that benefit priviledge or mercy is which he conceives annexed to infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed But that either
him and though I would not have Mr. B. of any man to turn Quaker yet I think he should rather tremble at the allegation of this text so impertinent to his purpose and not understand by Jerusalem Synecdochically the persons of years Nor would this be any more to contradict the Scripture at pleasure or to make it speak onely what we list then for him to understand by Jerusalem Synecdochically as he doth the Jewish nation or by Jerusalem to understand metonymically the people even the infants of the City To make the interpreting of speeches by tropes a contradicting them or making them speak what they list is such a â—oolery as I should rather have imagined to have come from some woman or Lay-preacher then from a man of such magnified learning as Mr. B. is had I not found it printed in his Book As for what he saith it is not fully a nation or city without infants though it were true as it is not yet that proves not that infants are meant in every speech of a nation or city any more then Math. 24.7 infants shall rise against infants because nation shall rise against nation or Matt. 21.10 infants were moved saying who is this because the whole city was moved saying who is this And hereby it may he seen how easily Christ might be understood without including infants and so much the more easily because though infants were in the Jewish Church yet Christ who spaâ—e not of gathering into the Jews Church but to himself in whose visible Church were no infants might be the more readily conceived to except infantâ— yea if he had meant infants could not be well understood by them And for his challenge I answer I dare thus expound his gathering of gathering onely the aged into his visible Church if Mr. B. imagine as he doth the similitude of a Hen to be used in vain if infants be not meant because the Hen gathereth the youngest by this reason Christ should use the similitude in vain if he would gather any other then infants sith the hen gathereth not hens and old cocks under her wings but onely little chickens Me thinks by leaving their house desolate Mr. B. should not mean the unchurching them For then it will follow that all the Jewish nation were unchurched for so he will have meant by Jerusalem which will overthrow many of his conceits about making Jewish and Gentile Churches one body the same the Church not broken off c. and prove afore he is aware the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership But enough of the silly insipid arguings if I may use his language of this Chapter let 's see whether the next have any better Ch. 13. My 8th arg saith Mr. B. is from Rev. 11.15 If the Kingdoms of this world either are or shal be the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ then infants also must be members of his Kingdom and consequently the gift and ordinance for their churchmembership is not repealed But the antecedent is the words of the text What can be said against this that is sense or reason If they say that by Kingdoms is meant some part of the Kingdoms excluding all infants I say such men need not look into the Scripture for their faith They may make their own Creed on these terms let Scripture say what it will I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdom and Jerusalem c. is taken for a part but if wee must take words always improperly because they are so taken sometime then wee shall not know how to undeâ—stand any Scripture and humane language will become useless and by this any man may put by any Testimony of Scripture though it were to prove the most fundamental truth As the Arrians put off all testimonies for the Godhead of Christ because Magistrates are called Gods But the circumstances of this text do evince to us that Christ speaketh properly of whole Jerusalem and whole Kingdoms and not improperly of any part onely 2. If they say that by Kingdom of Christ is not meant the Church of Christ they then speak against the constant phrase of the Scripture which cals Christs Kingdom his Church and Conversim Christ is King and Saviour of the same society What is Christs Kingdom but his Church I know the Kingdome of Christ is more large and more special but here it cannot be meant of his Kingdom in the larger sense as he is de jure onely King in regard of voluntary obedient subjects nor as hee over ruleth common societies and things For so the Kingdoms of the world were ever the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ and it could not be said that now they are become so So that for any thing I can see this text alone were sufficient to decide the controversie whether infants must bâ—e Church-members Answ. 1. I think this may bee said with sense and reason yea and clear evidence out of the text that by Kingdoms of the world Kingdoms of our Lord and his Châ—ist or as some copies have it the Kingdom of the world is become is not meant the men or members of either Kingdoms and so neither infant nor adult persons but the dominion power rule it self which the men of the world had usurped chiefly Antichrist which was Christs before of right but not till then become his by actual full and peaceable possession his enemies or the chief of them being noâ— till then subdued but tyranizing over his subjects And though I confess the term connotes men over whom Christ should have rule yet the persons ovâ—r whom Christ should rule then were not onely the Church but also his enemies whom he should subdue and keep under and judge Revel 2 26 27. That by Kingdome is meant Rule is manifest from many places Mâ—tth 6.10 13. John 18.36 Heb. 1.8 so Revel 17.17 18. And that this is the meaning here seems to me to be manifest 1. from that which is added and he shall reign for ever and ever which being the consequent of the Kingdome or Kingdomes of the world becomming our Lords and his Christ it shews that the Kingdomes note the rule or dominion whereby he reigns not the persons over whom he reigns 2. The same is confirmed from v. 17. where the same thing is expressed in those words We give thee thanks O Lord God almighty which art and wast and art to come because thou hast taken to thee thy great power and hast reigned And whâ—rein that is is expressed v. 18 in judging all rewarding his servants destroying the corrupters of the earth 3. From ch 12.10 where again the same or like thing is expressed thus Now is come salvation and strength or power and the Kingdome of our God and the power or authority of his Christ for the accuser of our brethren is cast down Where Kingdome and power are put together to shew that by the Kingdome is not meant the persons
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
part standing For the partition waâ—l â—s clearly meant of the body of Ceremonies and necessitie of repairing to the Temple and taking the yoke of Moses Law on them which kept the Gentiles from joyning with the Jewes in the worship of the same God which I keep not up in any sort much less pluck up the wall of the Church or vineyard it self and as for our children to lay all waste to the wilderness but Mr. B. by maintaining a national Church or visible Church-membership by natural discent doth keep up the partition wall in true construction sith the way of pulling down the partiâ—ion wall by God haâ—h been by making all one body through faith the succession of which in the place of Circumcision and the Jewish Churchmembership is the doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. and elsewhere as is shewed before Mr. B. continues the same prattle Ch. 15. thus My 11. arg is this If the children of believers be now put out of the Church then they are in a worse condicion then the very children of the Gentiles were before the comming of Christ But that were most absurd and false therefore so is the antecedent The consequent would plainly follow if the antecedent were true as is evident thus Before Christs comming any Gentile in the world without exception if hee would might have his children to be members of the visible Church But now according to Mr. T. no Gentile may have his child a member of the Church therefore according to this doctrine the very Gentiles as well as the Jews are in a worse condition now and Christ should come to be a destroyer and do hurt to all the world which is most vile doctrine That the Gentiles might have their children Church-members before if they would come in themselves is not denied nor indeed can bee For it is the express letter of Gods law that any stranger that would come in might bring his children and all bee circumcised and admitted members of the Jews Church This was the case of any that would be full proselytes God in providence did deny to give the knowledge of his laws to the Gentiles as he did to the Jews but he excepted no man out of the mercy of his Covenant that would come in and take it except some few that were destinated to wrath for the height of their wickedness whom he commanded them presently utterly to destroy If any say that the Gentiles were admitted with their infants into no Church but the particular Church of the Jews I shall answer him 1. That it is false for they were admitted into the visible universal Church as I shall shew more fully afterward 2. If it were so yet the Church of the Jewes was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better state then those without So that he that will be of the faith of our opposers you see must believe that Christ hath come to deny the very Gentiles that priviledge which for their children they had before Yea that you may see it was not tied to the Jews onely or the seed of Abraham even when Abrahams own family was circumcised and as Mr. T. thinks then first admitted all into the Church there was but one of the seed of Abraham circumcised at that time for he had no one but Ishmael but of servants that were not of his seed there were admitted or circumcised 318. trained men-servants that fought for him Gen. 14.14 and how many hundred women and children and all he had you may conjecture And all these were then of the Church and but one of Abrahams seed and that one Ishmael Therefore certainly though the greatest priviledges were reserved for Isaac and his seed of whom Christ was to come yet not the priviledge of sole churchmembership for the very children of Abrahams servants were churchmembers And so I think this is plain enough Answ. It is most vile doctrine to say Christ came to be a destroyer and to do hurt to all the world and it is most vile doctrine which Mr. B. insinuates as if the denying of infants visible churchmembership did infer their destruction which is most palpably false sith neither were all churchmembers visible saved as v. g. Ishmael Esau nor all non-visible churchmembers damned as v. g. abortives still-borns And therefore Mr. B. by these insinuations discovers nothing but his own vitulency and I can justly deny the consequence of his argument till he shew me what benefit the infants of believers now do lose by not being Christian visible churchmembers which tends to their destruction and what is the benefit of infant visible Christian churchmembership which is for their salvation which they have not though they be not visible churchmembers I mean real and not meer putative benefit For my part 1. I think still that infants were not admitted into any visible Church but the Jews and their being of the universal was onely in that they were of the Jewish 2. I think it is a benefit not to be of the Church Jewish in which men were entred by circumcision and bound to keep the law and that Cornelius and such other as were not full proselytes were in as good a case as the full proselytes and that it is but vain talk of Mr. B. that the Church of the Jews was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better estate then those without onely as proselytes of the gate 3. That though there were in the Jewish Church other then Abrahams seed yet they were all of the Hebrew Common-wealth 4. That many of those churchmembers had no part in any of the promises made to Abraham And I think this argument of Mr. B. takes onely with them who superficially look into the thing as Mr. B. hath done SECT LXVII Mr. 12th arg ch 17. part 1. of Baptism from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is answered and my answers vindicated CH. 17. he proceeds thus My 12th Arg. is from the forementioned Text Deut. 29.10 11 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones were entred into Covenant with God From whence I argue thus If the Covenant which those infants who were then church-members were entred into with God was a Covenant of grace or a Gospel Covenant then it is not repealed and consequently their churchmembership is not repealed as being built on the Covenant or inseparably conjunct But the said Covenant which the infants who were then churchmembers did pass into was a Covenant of grace as distinct from the law which was repealed therefore neither it nor their churchmembership is repealed Here I shall prove 1. That all the infants did pass into this Covenant 2. That they were churchmembers that did so 3. That it was such a Covenant of grace 4. And then it will follow that it is not repealed Answ. The argument from this Text was urged very hotly by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. but in another manner as I gather from two copies of
taken in by a promise nor was the promise or the seal grounded that is made or given by reason of the righteousness of faith to or in those to whom they were made or given Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B. 5. Saith he Inâ—ants were Churchmembers long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth and the â—udicial laws given them And as the Apostle argues the law which was many hundred years after could not make void the promise and so it could not be that this was part of the meerly judicial law Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth and judicial laws given as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Shâ—lah to take their brothers wife Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah concerning Tamar v. 24. before Moses time though then both were compleated Though the law makes not void the promise yet the law of infants visible Churchmembership if there were any such might be meerly judicial 6. Saith he That it is neither a meer judicial nor proper to the Jews appeareth thus That which was proper to the Jews was given to them onely that is onely to Isaac and his seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were intailed But many hundreds were circumcised as Churchmembers among them many infants in Abrahams family before ever Isaac was born and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in The children of Keturah and their children and the children of Ishmael c. were once all Churchmembers let any shew when they were unchurched except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness or let any shew that the same sons of Keturah who must circumcise their sons as Churchmembers while they were in Abrahams family must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family Did God change laws and revoke such mercies and priviledges to the seed of Abraham meerly because of their removing from his house and change of place Who dare believe such fancies without one word of Scripture Remember therefore that it is here plainly proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews Answ. That which waâ— proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac onely and his seed but common to Abraham Isaac and Jacobs family or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews When Ishmael was cast out and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac Gen. 25.6 they were not Churchmembers nor their children no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed Ezra 10. Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit however it seem to us Nor is this conceit a fancy but plain from those Scriptures named and others which still reckon the Ishmaeliâ—es Edomites Ketureans and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Israel as a profane people and so not Churchmembers Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Churchmembers or did it when separated from the Hebrew people So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews but that it is partly natural and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith as he speaks SECT LXIX Mr. B. ch 20. by his 15th arg from infants being once members in the universal visible Church hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed CH. 20. My 15th arg saith he is this If all infants who were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church which was never taken down then certainly their Churchmembership is not repealed But all infants that were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church therefore their Churchmembership is not repealed The consequence is beyond dispute because the universal Church never ceaseth here And in my judgement the whole argument is so clear that were there no more it were sufficient Answ. The very conclusion is so palpably false that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should shew himself so besotted as to prove so inâ—ustriously a thing contrary to sense that the visible Churchmembership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed that is ceaseth For who knows not that Isaac Jacob Moses David with millionâ— more are dead and are now no members in any visible Church If it be said that Mr. B. means the species of infants I reply then he speaks non-sense and false For the species is but one and therefore to â—erm the species which is but one all infants in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church for members are individuals nor is the universal visible Church totum universale which may bee thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches but totum integrale an integral whole consisting of parts existing and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased It is false also that the species an be termed visible For that is visible which may be discerned by sense but sense discerneth not species but individuals If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body as a river whiâ—h conâ—inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel neither will this â—ee for his purpose For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease and other infants succeed 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people to wit the Jews wâ—o had heretofore infants visible churchmembers they are broken off from being Gods visible Church and so the succession of churchmembers in tâ—at people ceaseth and it is that which is denied tâ—at in the other channel to wit the visible Christian Church infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants and if the sense be thus the whole argument is this If infants visible churchmembership be and â—ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish then it is not repealed But infants visible churchmembership is and ought to be taken to be in the christian visible Church as in the Jewish ergo of which I should deny the minor But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false And therefore I answer to his argument if the parenthesis which was never taken down be a part of the antecedent in the major and the sense be this and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not and this be supplied in the minor I dâ—ny the minor if it be not supplied I
deny the syllogism to be good as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major if it be understood in another sense which I count non-sense that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian the minor is to bee proved As for what Mr. B. saith the universal Church never ceaseth here if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members it is false if of an universal Church visible indefinite so as that the sense be some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal but in the definite of one age and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false Or if the sense bee as it seemeth by what followes That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not â—heere I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism And say That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church as it is to term humanity or manhood a man or Peter humanity or the humane nature All know that understand the Metaphysicks that whatever the difference bee whether formal or modal or some other yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other no man saith the essence of a thing which is all one with the nature is the thing but that by which it is In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church but of the compleatness of it But let 's view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he That there is a universal visible Church Mr. Rutherford and others have largely proved They of New England indeed deny a univeâ—sal visible governing or political Church but not this that I speak of as you may see in Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Allens answer to Mr. Ball But lest any should deny it I wiâ—l bring one proof or rather many in one 1 Cor. 12 13. We are all baptised by one spiriâ— into one body whether Jews or Gentiles Here you see it is one and the same body that all are baptised into Now that this is the visible Church I prove thus 1. That one body that hath distinct visible members with variety of gifts is the visible body But this is such 2. That one body which is visible in suffering and rejoycing is the visible body But this is such v. 25 26. 3. That body which is capable of schism and must be admonished not to admit of it is the visible body But this is such v. 25. 4. That body which had the visible seals of Baptism and the Lords Supper was the visible body But this was such v. 13. 5. That one body which had visible universal officers was the visible universal Church or body But this was such Therefore c. Answ. I list not to interpose my judgement in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hudson on the one side and Mr. Allen Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Hooker on the other side which rest much on the meaning of the term Church in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12 28. 10.32 Acts 8. â— Gal. 1.13 c. and some Logick notions of an universal and integral whole of a similar and dissimilar whole the distinction of a Church entitive and organical and the like Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing I shall thus far express my conceits 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alledged by Mr. Hudson vindic ch 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be onely out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren though perhaps the effect might extend further Nor do I think on the other side that in any one of them by the Church is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1 1â— For Saul did not make havock persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem but the word Church there is taken without quantity anâ— so neither notes the universal nor particular all nor some but indefinitely in genere confuso the disciples of Christ or any of that way Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ Acts 22.19 them that called on his name Acts 9.14 the Saints Acts 26.10 wheresoever hee could reach them And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 1 Tim. 3.15 and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10 whether by the Church be meant of what was done to or on the Church that is the believers called out of the Gentiles to whom hee gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius or by the teachers in the Church especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given Matth 16.18 It is true is meant the visible Church but not the universal organical collectively taken nor any particular Congregation organized but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail to keep them in but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day Nor is it said that the keyes should bee given to the Church but to Peter the use of which was to bee in the calling of the Church effectually The other text 1 Cor. 12.28 cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective nor of a particular Congregation not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson nor the former for the Apostles Prophets Teachers are distinct from the Church there taken but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum but in the Church distributively taken that is in the several Churches where they were imployed as Peter among those of the Circumcision Paul among the Gentiles To which the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set gives me occasion to encline which I conceive to bâ—e the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave Eph. 4.12 and it notes not a setting by way of law constituting such to be in the Church but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit as he saw good 2. I conceive the term Catholike or universal
the vniversal Church was onely by reason of their membership in the particular and therefore ceased with it And how is this proved Why Mr. T. saith it is so and that is the best proof and all that I could get Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it But I did then think and do still think it so plain that it needed not proof and as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith that every one that is a member of a part is a member of the whole and that the individual Church that then was was broken off for unbelief and I know no visible Church but an individual Methinks it is all one as if I had said the finger is onely a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body the finger ceaseth to be a member But yet M. B. will try whether hee can disprove this any better 1. Saith he I think I have sufficiently proved that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed but onely the accidental ceremonies and the individual Church that then was is broken off for unbelief but the Olive still remained Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish which if broken off though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed and the Olive still remained yet the infant Churchmembership which came onely in with the Jewish national Church might and did cease 2. Saith he If the Jews Church were repealed yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church must prove it well For if I find that they were once in it I need no more proof that they remain in till some one shew me where it is revoked which is not yet done by any that I know of Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church and of the Jews Church which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal is a piece of Baxterian non-sense which I use not That the Jewish Church national is broken off and that churchmembership by birth is altered into churchmembership by faith is so fully proved before sect 50 51 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me that I count it superfluous to add any more If it satisfie not Mr. B. it 's to be ascribed to his pertinacy in his opinion which to be his proper temper I was told long ago and much experience of him by my self and others find to be true 3. Saith he The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher priviledge then our standing or membership in any particular Therefore it will not follow that infants lose the greater because they lose the lesser and that they are cast out of the universal because they are cast out of the particular Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively because the universal comprehend the most excellent part and the rest also but not intensively sith all the excellency may be from one part Christ the head is not the universal body and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ that is hath not more perfection then Christ for all the excellency in all the members is Christs and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher priviledge then in the particular Church yea if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular yet the standing in the particular is a higher priviledge Else why do Ministers exhort men to joyn with some particular Church and to submit to their Pastors is it not for their advantage Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers and those that are separâ—tists from a particular Church and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large and are so members of the universal Church should not think they have a higher priviledge then members of a particular Church If he do he doth wrong them in condemning them and disswading them from that state which is a higher priviledge Much less is it true concerning infants who are not visible Churchmembers but as they stand in the particular Church For they are not by their own profession visible Churchmembers but meerly in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people as God did the Hebrew nation and no other before nor since This is clear if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant this male infant would be no visible Churchmember there being nothing by which he is discernable to sense to be more one of Gods people then another infant though there weâ—e many Churches of Gentiles â—n other places Whereas on the other side if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers remote from any particular Churches I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal though of no particular Whence it follows that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish they lose their standing in the universal 4. Saith he Persons are first in order of nature or time or both members of the universal Church before they are members of any particular So was Noah Loâ— Abraham and all men before Christ and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church and not into any particular It is so with all others It is the general use and nature of Baptism they are baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so into the catholick Church but not into any particular Church If any such thing be it is secondary and accidental and additional and no proper end of Baptism So that it being first in order that we are entred into the visible universal Church it is likely to be of more durable continuance Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism and about the priority in order or time or both according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular I do agree that persons who were visible Churchmembers by their sensible profession of the true God were members of the universal afore they were of the particular But deny this concerning infants for the reason before given 5. Saith he It is no good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the universal therefore this will not prove infants are broke off If a Jew had been forced into a strange countrey yet there both he and his children had been Churchmembers
of the universal Church When all the Jews were scattered abroad in captivity so that they had neither temple nor altar nor priest but perhaps one live in one Town and another in another as they do at this day you could not say that these were of the visible particular Church of the Jews though you might say still that they were Abrahams seed and they and their children were members of the visible universal Church Answ. The consequence is good as I frame it Their churchmembership visible ceaseth who were visible Churchmembers onely in that they were part of that visible Church which now ceaseth But so it was concerning infants visible churchmembership ergo it ceaseth Which is different from that which Mr. B. imposeth on me To his suppositions I say that they were in that case members of the visible particular Church of the Jews which was a particular Church and so accounted even in their captivity though not in a flourishing estate as in their own countrey And for the instance of Keturahs children when they left the Church of Abrahams family if their infants were visible Church-members which I conceive they were not then it was because they joyned themselves as proselytes to the Hebrew people which I think is not true and therefore conceive if any of Keturahs children who left the Church of Abrahams family professed the God of Abraham they were members of the universal but not their infants And â—or what Mr. B. adds â—f a Jew then or a Christian now were cast upon the coasts of America where he should never be a member of a particular Church more yet he should be a member of the universal still I grant it while they profess God in Christ. And for what he adds Neither Joseph Mary nor Jesus in his infancy were unchurched because they lived in Aegypt though I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Churchmember property but I pass by that I grant it for they remained members of the Jewish Church then when they were in Aegypt as I presume Mr. B. counts those of his Church of Kederminster members still who may by imprisonment traffique service of the State in war sickness or otherwayes be absent thence in England or forreigne parts against their will 6. Saith he Again to lose their standing in the visible universal Church is to lose their place in the visible body 1 Cor. 12.13 and in the house oâ— the living God 1 Tim. 3.15 the pillar and ground of truth But to be removed from one particular Church or from every particular Church is no casting out of Christs body or Gods house therefore it will not follow upon the removal from a particular Church that they are removed from the universal especially when we are not speaking of individual infants but of the whole species So that I think this argument is unanswerable Infants were members of the universal visible Church as Mr. T. confesseth This is the Church that we are now baptized into and this Church constitution is not altered or taken down therefore infants membership of this Church is not taken down what ever it be of the Jews particular Church Answ. The consequence is good as I framed it in the paragraph next before yea though Mr. Bs. two propositions here be granted Nor can Mr. B. overthrow it â—â—ll he prove that the Jews infants had a standing in the universal visible Church severed from their standing in the Jewish particular for which he hath yet brought no proof His saying that he spake of the whole species not of individual infants makes his speeches to appear ridiculous non-sense For the whole species hath no standing in the visible Church universal or particular nor can be said to be admitted in or cast out or removed from one or every particular Church These things cannot be said of a species but of individuals sith a species is conceived abstractively from all individuificating circumstances of time place c. which must be conceived in visible Churchmembership and removal or casting out And that we are baptised now into that universal visible Church in which infants were members is utterly false and that the Church constitution is altered in that the Jewish particular Church ceaseth iâ— proved before therefore there is notâ—ing in this argument unanswerable As for what Mr. B. adds to this Chapter p. 339. I finde not that â—e brings any more strength in it which needs further answer He refers me to Mr. Hudsons vindic but tels me not what part he would have me answer perhaps there is not any thing in the book that opposeth mee besides what is already answered and I am not yet so obsequious to Mr. B. as to go ovâ—r a whole book to finde an adversary to fight with if Mr. B. knâ—w any strength in it to oppose me with he should have himself produced it or referred me to the particular place where I might finde it As for the texts which hee cites out of Mr. Hudson an answer is fuâ—ly made to what hee brings them for in the 2d paâ—t of this Revâ—ew â—ect 9. in which Mr. B. and others may see how shamefully they abuse Scripture to prove a church national comprehending infants like the Jewish in the time of the Goâ—pel And I add that if Mr. B. weigh Mr. Hudsons words in his vindic ch 4 sect 5. p. 93 94. I acknowledge the Jews to be a national Church But my description of the Church Catholike was of the Church as it is now sâ—nce the partitition wall is broken down fâ—r then it became Catholike I conceive there were believers of the sons of Keturah that dâ—d not partake of all the priviledges of the Jewish Church except they became proselytes It is the Evangelical Catholike Church which my question is about into which the Jewes themselves being converted were admitted by a new initial seal viz. baptism and did not stand in it by their former national membership but received a Catholike membership by baptism I conceive that a man of any nation converted to be a visible believer is a member of the Church Catholike enâ—itive and hereby hath right to all Church priviledges that belong to the whole Church Gods method usâ—d in the national Church of the Jews bâ—ing in populo Israelitico mâ—st â—eeds differ from the method in populo Catholico hee will finde that learned man speaking as much for my purpose as his own They thaâ— boldly affirm that Christs Covenant his satiâ—faction his Church his sealing extend to any more then elect joyn with the Arminians against the Scripture and the most approved Protestants and the contrary contains no desperate expressions as Mr. B bâ—ing mâ—sleaâ— speaks Mr. Hudsons words pag. 220. are not right If any hold that the believing Jews children are still Churchmembers and yet deny that the Gentiles children are so hee may hold it still notwithstanding the assault made by Mr. B. here For by the taking down the partition wall
Ephes. 2.14 and the removing the enmity v. 16. Jews and Gentiles are not made one visible Church after the Jewish frame but one by faith and by it the Gentiles are clâ—ansed Aâ—â—s 15.9 not a whole nation parents and children as the Jewish Church but believers repenting Acts 11.17 18. one body one Lord one faith one baptism c. Eph. 4.5 6. proves not the Gentile and Jewish Church visible to be the same but the invisible of both Gal. 6.15 hath not a word tending to prove that there is the same reason of Jews and Gentiles infant visible churchmembership but of the equal interest in Christ of Gentiles who are new câ—eatures as of the Jews It is no part of Pauls Epistles and therefore not much of their substance to prove the taking in of the Gentiles and graffing them into the Olive which the Jews were of if by it were meant the visible Church Jewish but it is most palpably false The discipling nations the Kingdoms of the world becomming Christs Rev. 11.15 prove not infantâ— discipleship or churchmembership All hitherto brought by Mr. B. hath yeilded no sufficient proof let 's view the rest SECT LXX Mr. Bs. 16th and 17th arg from the promise of mercy Exod. 20.6 and of blessing Psal. 37.26 are answered CH. 21. saith Mr. B. The 16th arg then is this Exod. 20.5 6. From hence I argue thus If God have made over this mercy of Churchmembership in the moral law to the children of all that love and obey him then it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased But God hath made over this mercy in his moral law to the children of all that love and obey him therefore it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased Nothing but the antecedent here needeth proof Every man I think among us will confess that the moral law was not proper to the Jews and that it is not ceased Even the most of the Antinomians confess the ten Commandments are in force as the law of Christ though not as the law of Moses However if they be against the preceptive part of the law yet sure they will not bee against the promissary part Though there be some clauses that were suted to the Jews peculiarly yet I never yet met with man that would say this was so If the ten Commandments be not currant proof there is no disputing with them out of Scripture Answ. There is need of proof of more then the antecedent to make this argument good For 1. the conclusion is not that which Mr. B. should prove Churchmembership and visible Churchmembership children and infant children being not all one God may shew the mercy of Churchmembership to infants and yet not make over to them visible Churchmembership and he may make over visible Churchmembership to the children of them that love him and yet not to them in infancy So that the conclusion may bee granted as it stands without any impeachment to my tenet But if it be meant of visible Churchmembership of infant children the minor is to be denied And to the proof 1. I except that this promise was proper to the Jews made to back the legal Covenant and though it be a promise annexed to the observing a moral precept yet as in the fifth Commandment termed the first Commandment with promise Ephes. 6.2 So in this the promise hath special reference to their prosperous and safe estate in Canaan in which they were continued while they kept themselves from idolatry and on the other side expelled captivated enslaved when they served idols unto the third and fourth generation upon which considering the time of making this promise the usual tenour of promises in the Books of Moses as Deut. 7.9 12. to the same purpose the place where this promise is put the event which doth best expound it and that no where under the Gospel promises are made to believers children but onely to believers themselves of Evangelical mercy yea the Apostle concludes that notwithstanding the promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 and to Israel yet God hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom he will hee hardens Rom. 9.18 I do determine without fear of Mr. Bs. censure that this promise was suited to the Jews peculiarly 2. I hence infer that if this mercy be meant of Churchmembership yet it might bee yea was proper to the Jews children 3. The mercy here cannot be proved to be visible Churchmembership 4. That it is onely to those mens children who love him and keep his Commandments which is an invisible thing and so whose infants are visible Churchmembers by this promise cannot bee known 5. That this promise is made good though it be not performed to all those that love him nor to all their children nor to any in infancy 6. That this promise is not true without the exception of election and the expounding of it as conditional and not absolute sith it must then follow that God exempts none yet from mercy there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day So that till Mr. B. have proved the contrary to these which he can never do his proof from hence will appear to be of no force But let us examine what he saith Let mee try therefore whether this 2d Commandment in the words cited do not prove the minor to which end I argue thus If God have assured his mercy by promise to the children of all them that love and obey him then he would have them be taken for members of his Church But hee hath here assured his mercy by promise to the children of them that love and obey him therfore he would have them bee taken for Churchmembers The minor is plain in the text The consequence of the major I prove thus viz. that all those must be taken for Churchmembers on whom God hath thus stated or assured his mercy by promise the word mercy I shall explain anon If God have estated and assured his mercy by promise to no other society of men in the world but the Church then all those are members of the Church on whom his mercy is thus estated and assured But God hath estated and assured his mercy on no other society Therefore c. Here let me a little explain my meaning Sometime when God promiseth mercy it is first to some particular person or family Sometime to a whole species or sort of persons 2. Sometimes it is some particular named mercy and sometime in the general naming no sort or individual mercy 3. Sometimes it is upon a special ground proper to some one person or to few and somtimes it is upon a common ground 4. When the mercy is specified it is sometime meerly corporal and sometime spiritual 5. And of spiritual mercies sometime it is common to others besides the saved and sometime special and proper to the saved 6. Sometime it is mercy limiâ—ed to a short or certain time and sometime estated
not a word that intimates any society here pronounced blessed much less the society of the Church Nor doth the term blessed prove it must be meant of the Church For others then the Church and churchmembers are sometimes blessed as Psal. 137.9 Psal. 144 15. Mr. B. here ch 24. They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 Luke 23.29 6. Mr. B. himself tels us p. 330. That he affirms onely a certaâ—nty of churchmembership and a strong probability of the justification of the infants of the righteous But if we urge the word strictly they onely are blessed whose sins are forgiven Psal. 32.1 Rom. 4.6 7. and therefore this Text may as soon prove justification of every righteous mans seed which Mr. B. asserts not as visible churchmembership Yea no where is any termed blessed by reason of his visible churchmembership but many times for their outward prosperity as Psal. 144.15 Deut. 28.2 c. Gen. 17.20 27.38 39. And that in this respect the blessing is meant Psal. 37.26 may be gathered 1. from the constant tenour of the promises made to the righteous and their seed which either are altogether or for the most part in blessings of this life and accordingly the performance 2. Because in the New Testament in which spiritual blessings are assured there iâ— no promise of them to a believer and his seed but to believers onely 3. The occasion and series of the Text Psal. 37.25 26. leads plainly to this sense that the righteous is not so forsaken nor his seed as to be destitute of bread that though he be mercifull and lendeth yet his seed is blessed with sufficient provision of outward things 4. The Texts Psal. 112.2 Psal. 128.1 2 3 4. Psal. 144.15 lead us to this sense From all which I answer by denying the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. argument and to his proof say that it is no absurdity to pronounce persons blessed and yet â—â—ne of Gods visible Church SECT LXXI Mr. 18th arg from the priority of infants churchmembership before Circumcision His 19th from Gods proneness to mercy His 20th from blessing and cursing Deut. 28. are answered MR. B. proceeds thus ch 23. The 18th arg is this If infants were churchmembers before ever Circumcision was instituted then certainly it was not proper to the Jews and consequently not ceased according to Mr. T. his own Doctrine But infants were churchmembers before Circumcision was instituted therefore it was not proper to the Jews nor is ceased Here at our Dispute Mr. T. seemed to yeeld all if I would prove infants were churchmembers before Circumcision Ans. So far as I can discern by my memory and such notes I have of the Dispute this was my concession That if Mr. B. would prove admission of infants as churchmembers before Circumcision I should yeeld to what he averred that the law and ordinance of infants as visible churchmembers was not repealed Yet I confess by reason of Mr. Bs. quickness of speech his unheeded altering terms using often visible churchmembers for admission as visible churchmembers which in that time in the conflict of Dispute I did not always take notice of or through weariness mention it not to be unlikely I did say as Mr. B. saith I did However by my writings it appâ—ars this is and was my constant judgement that infants were visible members of no Church but that of the Hebrews nor such till by Gods call of Abraham and his house they were taken to be his separated people and that infants were not admitted visible churchmenbers nor any law of admission till that of Circumcision Gen. 17. Mr. B. adds But in his Sermon since among much of the same stuff he made the poor deluded people believe I mean those that will believe him that by infants being churchmembers I mean nothing else but that they suck of the brests of godly parents and are brought up in the family of godly parents just as in our Dispute he would have faced me down before thousands of people that by churchmembership I meant nothing but Circumcision I told him I did not and he told the people still that I did Is it any intemperance or harshness upon such dealings to say that it is sad that I will not say eminent holiness but a very little tenderness of conscience and fear of God and love of truth or charity to a brother yea or common modesty should not restrain this but that Mr. T. durst first take on him to search the heart and know a mans thoughts to be contrary to his prâ—fession secondly and contrary to the plain sense of his terms of speech thirdly and perswades multitudes of people that it is so What hope can I have that ever Mr. T. should be brought to the truth when he hath not ability enough to understand what is the meaning of a member of the visible Church and that after I had so fully told him I was long before I could get him to confess that Circumcision and Churchmembership were two things and separable till I gave him instance in women Answ. 1. In the Dispute I confess I did conceive that Mr. B. could mean nothing but the command of Circumcision by his ordinance of infants visible churchmembership not imagining that he should magnifie such a toy as he hath in his Letter to me devised from Gen. 1.26 27. 3.15 c. which and not defect of truth tenderness of conscience modesty or charity in all which whether of us be defective the Lord will judge made me so confident he did mean as I then said 2. But that I ever said in my Sermon that by infants being churchmembers he meant nothing else but that they suck the brests of godly parents and are brought in the family of godly parents I do not yet believe This I might and I think did say and do say it again That I knew no sign whereby infants are visible churchmembers except those be signs which are mentioned 3. That I was long in yeelding the separation of Circumcision and visible churchmembership it was because I conceived that he meant infants of oâ—her people besides the circumcised were visible churchmembers but when I found he meant that they were distinct and separable in the people of the Jews I yeelded it He proceeds thus And now must I be fain to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking the brest of a godly woman nor being brought in the family What a hard word is this Churchmember when I know not possibly how to speak it plainer Why Sir where is the difficulty Is it in the word Church I suppose we are agreed what a Church visible is at least you understand it Or is it in the term member why do you not know what a member is How understand you Pauls discourse about the members and body Do you understand what is totum aggregatum pars totius Do yoâ— understand what it is to be a member
Church who are not of the visible yet we may judge some infants at least are so though nonâ— be of the visible Church Again saith Mr. B. it appears that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out Therefore those that are not fetcht out are in it still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable Heb. 2 14· Christ destroyed by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Therfore seeing Mr. T. buildeth so much on this Apol. p. 66. That infants are neither in the kingdom of Christ nor Satan visibly till profession either be must prove that God hath left it wholly in the dark and not revealed that any infants are of Satans vâ—sible kingdom or of Christs the contrary whereof is abundantly proved or he must find out some 3d. kingdom or society and so find out some 3d. King bâ—sides the King of the Church and the Prince of this world and it 's like he wil bee put to finde out a third place for them hereafter besides heaven and hell Answ. It is a weariness to the flesh to write books it is much more when a man is to answer such scriblings as this of Mr. B. which being so magnified as it hath been and written with so much confidence and insolent provocations is a monument of the boldness and shallowness of readers and writers in this age What frivolous arguing are here Christ destroyed him that had the power of death Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Ergo they were of Satans kingdom as it is contradistinct to Christs visible Church till Christ by death fetcht them out If Satans power of death visibly over infants shew them to be in Satans visible kingdome as contradistinct to the visible Church doth not the same prove all the infants of believers to be in Satans visible kingdome as well as the infants of unbelievers yea doth it not prove the visible Church to be in Satans visible kingdome For over them Satan had this power of death as visibly as over the infants of unbelievers Yea wherein doth the power of death visibly shew a persons being in the visible kingdome of Satan more then Jobs smiting in his body by Satan or the womans who was a daughter of Abraham and bound by Satan 18. years shewed them to have been then in the visible kingdome of the Devil as contradistinct to the visible Churth Besides those that Christ is said to have fetcht out or delivered are those who through fear of death were all their life-time subâ—ect to bondage Heb. 2 â—4 Doth Mr. B. interpret this of infants Besides if it appear that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out therefore those that are not fetcht out are in still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable How can Mr. B. say any infants of believers are fetcht out oâ— Satans kingdome visibly By what means is it visible or discernable that a believers infant is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome and 〈◊〉 an unbelievers Christs death was visible it's true but that either Christs death did destroy visibly Satan or visibly delivered those who were subject to bondage or that by it is visible or discernable that a believers infant and not an unbelievers is fetcht out of Satan's visible kingdom is unknown to me The ordinary meanes whereby it is visible that a person is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdom is in that he hears obeys and professeth the Gospel Surely by this means or any other it is not visible or discernable that any infant of the most sincere believer is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome therefore by Mr. Bs. own suppositions hee cannot say that any believers infant is fetcht out of the visible kingdome of the Devil and so his argument is retorted on him That doctrine which leaveth all infants in the visible kingdome of the Devil is false But such is Mr. Bs. according to his own suppositions Ergo. As for what hee would impose on mee it is false that God hath left it in the dark it is clear as light at noon that infants are neither in Christs nor Satans visible kingdome and yet they have Christ or Satan for their â—ing and are to bee in heaven or hell as they are elect or reprobate And therefore his talk of what I must finde out is but his prattle and of what hee hath abundantly proved is but his idle vapouring of himself 3. Saith hee Sure the Apostle calls the world them that are without as distinct from the Church visible who are within Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 And hee speaks it as the dreadfull misery of them those that are without God judgeth 1 Cor. 5.12 13. Now infants are either within or without and to bee without is to bee of the world which the Devil is by Christ said to be Prince of Answ. To bee without Mark 4.11 is to bee without not within Gods election to bee without Revel 22.15 is to bee without the gates of the city the new Hierusalem which I take to bee all one as to be cast into outer darkness as Christ terms it Either of these ways all infants are within or without but those without in the places cited by Mr. B. cannot bee said of infants for they are not persons towards whom wee are to walk in wisedome Col. 4.5 or honesty 1 Thes. 4.12 this beeing required that our example may not harden them but it were ridiculous to require this in respect of infants The Apostle doth not speak it as the dreadfull misery of them that are without that God judgeth them 1 Cor. 5.12 but onely mentions it as an intimation why they belonged not to his judgement nor doth hee in any of the places term them the world who are without the visible Church or Christ say that Satan is Prince of all that are not visible Churchmembers but of the world of reprobates and such as are contrary to Christ and in whom he rules nor is the term those that are without in any of those places taken for them that are without privatively for want of capacity to understand profess and act for Christ but for those who are positively without by the acts of their own will not receiving Christ nor embracing the profession of him such as were unbelievers fornicators idolaters c. 1 Cor. 5.10 11 12. Such as could observe and did stumble at the evil practises of the Christians Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 in which sense it is not true that infants are without though they be privatively or negatively without the visible Church SECT LXXIII Mr. Bs. 22. arg Ch. 27. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered CH.
27. Mr. B. goes on thus The 22th arg That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world is certainly false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth any infants to bee members of the visible Church doth leave us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world therefore it is certainly false doctrine No reasonable temperate Christian will deny the major I think The minor I know will be passionately denied Mr. T. takes it hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. that they pinch him a little in this point as if it were but to raise an odium upon him And yet when hee hath done all for the mitigation of the odium which hee saith was his end Apol. pag. 62. yet he doth so little towards the vindication of his doctrine that hee confesseth it suspendeth any judgement of infants wee can neither sâ—y they are in the Covenant of grace nor out Apol. pag. 62. Hee labours to prove that there is no such promise or Covenant in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers but that God would have us to suspend our judgement of this matter and rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9.18 yet that there is a hope though not certain yet probable and comfortable taken from some general indefinite promises of the favor of God to the parents and experience that in all ages hoth been had of his merciful dealing with the children of his servants Apol. p. 112. Answ. What I took hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. I did justly what I said that there is no such covenant or promise in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers I meant it of them as such or universally what I said that God would have us to suspend our judgment of this matter I meant whether this or that particular infant be in the Covenant of grace To Mr. Bs. arg I say if his major be meant of such a grounded hope as is certain from faith believing a particular promise of God concerning believers infants dying in infancy as Mr. B. seems to understand it I deny the major if very probable and likely from such declarations and promises and experiments as we have I deny the minor and shall follow Mr. B. I will first saith he prosecute my argument and then consider of these words understand therefore that 1. I do not charge their doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish but with the taking away of all positive Christian well grounded hope of their salvation Answ. Yet by your charging us with this that by our doctrine they are not so much as seemingly in a state of salvation you do charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that they all certainly perish And it will appear by that which follows that with you no hope of their salvation is Christian and well grounded but what is cerâ—ain upon a promise of God apprehended by faith in which is the chief difference between us You add That the question now is not of particular infants of believers but of the species or whole sort that so die not whether this or that infant be certainly saved or we have any such hope of it but the question is whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justâ—fie and save any infants in the world or any infants of helievers at all Answ Between whom the question is as Mr. B here saith I do not understand the question between me and my Antagonists is not as Mr. B. here sets it down I have always asserted that there is a certainty and hope that God will justifie and save some infants in the world some infants of believers and have often acknowledged those that Christ prayed for laying on his hands were elect ones but the question is whether there be any such promise to a believer and his natural seed wâ—ich assures salvation to them as the seed of believers and consequently whether there be a certain hope of theâ— all dying in their infancy that they shall be saved This I have denied because I know no such promise in Scripture and if there were it would prove the salvation of those at age though prophane as Esau For if the promise belong to the seed as such and it includes salvation then it assures 〈◊〉 all the seed of belieâ—ers whether dying at age prophanely or in infancy So that it is not true that the question is not whether this or that infant bee certainly saved or we have any such hope of it nor is it true that the question is of the species or whole sort that so die or whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justifie and save any infants in the world or any infants of believers at all yea Mr. B. in the words next before would not charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish But the question is whether there be a certainty from a promise that he will save them all dying in infancy nor is the question of the species or whole sort of infants but of the particular infants of believers Now saith he I affirm 1. that there is a ground of Christian hope left us in this that God doth save some infants yea and that particular ones though that be not now the question Answ. Now this I affirm too though I assert not such a certainty by promise to infants of believers as Paedobaptists do 2. Saith he That they that put them all out of the visible Church leave us no such hope I will begin with the later which is the minor in the argument And 1. I take it for granted that to be a visible member of of the Church and to be a member of the visible Church is all one He that denieth that will but shew his vanity And that the invisible Church or the sincere part is most properly and primarily called the Church and the body of Christ and the Church as visible containing also the unsincere part is called the Church secondarily and for the sake of the invisible and so it is called the body because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible If we were fully certain by his own external discoveries that any man were not of the invisible Church that man should not be taken to be of the visible Therefore the properties and priviledges of the invisible Church are usually given to the visible as to be Saints holy all the children of God by faith Gal. 3.26 to be Christs body 1 Cor. 12.13 to be branches in Christ Joh 15.2 c. because as the sincere are among them so all visible members seem in the essentials of Christianity to be sincere therefore if any converted Jew or Pagan were to be taken into the Church upon his prâ—fession we ought not
to admit him except his profession seem to be serious and so sincers for who durst admit him if we knew he came but in jest or to make a scorn of Christ and Baptism So that to be a member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Therefore even Cardinal Cusanus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs And our Divines generally make the unsound hypocrites to be but to the Church as a wooden leg to the body or at the best as the hair and nails c. and as the straw and chaff to the corn And so doth Bellarmine himself and even many other whom he citeth of the Papists Aquinas Petr. a soto Joh. de Turrecremata Hugo Alex Alensis Canus And when Bellarmine feigneth Calvin and others to make two militant Churches our Divines reject it as a calumny and manifest fiction and say that the Church is not divided into two sorts but it is a two fold respect of one and the same Church one as to the internal essence the other aâ— to the external manner of existing as Ames speaks Answ. Though much of this passage be yeelded by me yet I reject those speeches because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible to be a visible member of the Church is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called the invisible of the true mystical body of Christ For to be a visible member of the Christian Church is not all one as to seem to be of the invisible Church For 1. a person may be of the visible Church according to Mr. B. who lives alone in America and therefore seems to no man to be of the invisible Church no man knoweth or judgeth probably or certainly him to be of Christs mystical body 2. A person may seem to be of the invisible Church and yet not be of the visible as an Indian while a Christian preacheth who yet professeth not Christ yet seems by his gestures to be affected with it and sundry others Therefore it is necessary to be a visible Churchmember that his profession be visible that is be discernable to mens understanding through the sensibility of it 3. To some a person may seem to be of the invisible Church to others not is he of the visible Church or not or are both true and if noâ— how shall we know which is true which not 4. To seem to be of 〈◊〉 invisible Church is but accidental to the visibility of a Churchmember though he should seem to none to be of the invisible Church yea though through mens ignorance or uncharitableness the person should seem to be a reprobate or hypocrite yet he might be nevertheleless a visible Christian and so a churchmember of the catholick visible which Mr. B. avoucheth Mr. Bs. reasons here go upon a gross mistake as if it were all one to be a visible churchmember and to be received or admitted as a visible churchmember and that a person were denominated visible from what men apprehend or what seems to them whereas the denomination is as Ames saith truly in the place meant by Mr. B. from the external form or manner of existing Though a person be not to be received as a visible member of the Church because he seems not to be found yet he may be a visible churchmember Nor is he such because they pass a judgement on him but because his profession is such as might shew him to be a Christian if any did observe it or would candidly interpret it But how far Mr. B. errs from the true understanding of the main point of his book what it is to be a visible churchmember sometimes making it the same with a seeming to be of the mystical body of Christ sometimes a right to a benefit and how indistinctly he speaks of this thing which if he had minded any exact disquisition of truth he should in the beginning of his Dispute have first cleared is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 17. at large pag. 228 c. In this part sect 55 c. And for want of observing this his mistake I judge many learned men and others have been misled by him He saith Again you must understand that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a member of any particular or political body or society as Rome would have it And to be a visible member doth not necessarily import that he is actually knowne to bee a member for hee may live among the blinde that cannot see that which is visible But that he is one so qualified as that hee ought to bee esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it Answ. 1. This passage doth overthrow Mr. Bs. definition of a visible Churchmember which is that he is one that seems to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church Now he that seems such is actually known or discerned to be such that seems so which is thought to be so Videtur quod sic videtur quod non in the Schools are expressâ—ons of a mans opinion but according to Mr. B. to be a visible church-member doth not necessarily import he is actually known or discerned therefore he may be a visible churchmember who doth not seem to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church and then the definition is not right as not agreeing to every thing defined 2. His speeches He may live among the blind who cannot see that which is visible that he is one qualified so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ a man living alone in America hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there be none to discern it do plainly intimate that visible churchmembership is constituted by some qualification which is visible so that he ought thereupon to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore visible churchmembership is from some qualification sensible and is before the esteem in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ and though such esteem should not follow yet the person is a visible churchmember and therefore Mr. B. doth most unskilfully define a visible churchmember to be one that seems or is esteemed to be of the invisible Church For though this be and ought to be a consequent upon the other yet it is not the same but as I have shewed even according
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâ—ents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâ—g 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â— no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
of particular infants of true believers moâ—â— probable till the contrary appear by them and for the full certainty I leave it as to me uncertain If we have but a probable hope of the salvation of men at age it is no absurdity in my apprehension to say we have but probable hope of their salvation yet we have a greater degree of probability in our hopes of the salvation of such as have in appearance spent their lives in a holy course then of infants so dying 2. Saith he It is as much as I desire for if their salvation be probable then they are visibly or seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation and so must needs be visible members of the Church How dare Mr. T. refuse to take those for visible Churchmembers whose salvation is probable when he hath no more but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world Answ. 1. I have often told Mr. B. that to be seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation is not all one as to be such visibly and that such may be no visible Churchmembers whose salvation is seeming or probable to our judgement 2. Though I have but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world yet I have a certainty of his profession by which I take him to be a visible Churchmember and not by the probability of his salvation and this I dare do and I wonder how Mr. B. against the current of all the N. T. dare do otherwise 3. But saith he doth not this contradict what went before And I wish he do not contradict it again in his proofs His first proof of the probability is from some general indefinite promises but what these promises are he tels us Apol. pag. 64. By general and indefinite promises be means such as determine not the kinde of good promised nor the particular person and therefore are true if performed to any person in any sort of good and conditional upon condition of faith and obedience Answ. 1. If it determine not the kind of good formally nor virtually nor contain it generically then how doth it make it probable 2. And if it neither determine the person nor give 〈◊〉 ground to determine how then doth it become probable to that person 3. And how then can that promise give hopes to the faithfull of the salvation of their infants which is verified if performed to any person in any sort of good as if it were but to one infant in a nation in reprieving him a day from damnation If it intend more then this then it is not verified or fulfilled in this much if it intend no more then how doth it make their salvation probable 4. And sure the conditional promises which he mentioneth requiring faith and repentance are little to the benefit of infants if these conditions are required of themselves in their infancy And for his other two grounds of hope viz. the favour of God to the parents and experience they are comfortable helps to second the promise but of themselves without a word would give us no ground of Christian hope in such matters as justification and salvation are Answ. I perceive no contradiction in my words 1. By putting in those words nor contain it generically he intimates as if I had denied the promises I mention to contain generically the good of justification and salvation whereas I termed the promises expresly general and cited Psal. 103.17 18. Psal. 112 â— c. which mention Gods righteousness and blessedness and so may comprehend eternal righteousness and blessedness and thereby the justification and salvation of infants becomes probable though it be not certain sith Gods righteousness and blessedness may be conferred in another kind As if a rich King promise money to a mans children it 's probable he will give them gold thouâ—h it be not certain 2. Though the particular person be not determined yet sith the qualification of the person is expressed to be the generation of the righteous it is probable that it is meant of each till the contrary appears as if a man promise to make such a mans children heirs this is probable of every one till it appear otherwise and yet not certain 3. I have shewed how especially if we consider that favours are wont to be amplified to the most Though Gods intentions are not fulfilled perhaps with so litle yet the words may be verified if no more but temporal blessedness be given 4. The conditional promises I confess give us but slender hope of infants by themselves yet with general indefinite promises declarations of Gods favour to his people and experience they yeeld a strong ground of hope of the justification and salvation of infants of believers though not certain and sure as Mr. B. would have but how short he is in proof will appear in that which followes SECT LXXIIII Mr. Bs. allegations p. 76 77 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine His 23d Arg. ch 28. his 25th ch 30. are answered HE tels us That he hath a stronger probabilty then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitted them visible members of his Church For Christ is the Saviour of his body and he present his Church clensed and unspotted to the Father And if God will have them to be visible members of his Church then he would have us take or judge them to be members of it And withal there is less danger of mistake in them then in men at years because they do not dissemble nor hide any hypocritical intents under the vizor of profession as they may do And it is certain also that if God would have some and many to be of the true body of Christ and so be saved then hee would not have all to bee visibly out of that body That he would have have them churchmembers is proved and shall be God willing yet more If God add to the Church such as shall be saved then there is a strong probability of their salvation whom he addeth to the Church Answ. Mr. B. here p. 74. in his arguments 2d and 3d. intimated that he asserted a sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of believers infants so dying and that to be a promise in the word of the salvation of those within the visible Church and here he asserts a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church Yet pag. 78. he dares not say there 's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants so dying Yea pag. 110. he saith Rom. 9.8 the Apostle pleadeth that salvation is not by the Covenant tyed to all Abrahams seed Out of which I infer 1. That Mr. B. hath
were a Sabbath yet this proves not that freeing servants then is any more said to be ceased then infants visible Churchmembership 2. Saiâ—h he The dedication of the first-born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him Of both these many Scriptures are plain But let it be proved that the admitting of infants into the visible Church is a meer type or a meer judicial law proper to the Jewish Common-wealth any more then the admitting of men or women into the Church I reply 1. Admitting of infants into the visible Church was no other then by their circumcising or presenting at the Temple and these are ceased as proper to the Jewish Church or Commonwealth 2. A thing may cease though we cannot prove it a meer type nor a meer judicial law as the receiving tythes and paying them and things may remain though they were tâ—pes as mount Sion the land of Canaan the people of Israel whâ—ch were types Heb. 12.22 Gal. 6.6 c. 3. That the Jewish infant Churchmembership was not by a law but by a fact of providence which took in the whole people of the Jews into the Church visible Jewish and consequently the infants as part of that people which by the breaking off that people and taking into the Church onely believers is now ceased as is shewed before sect 50 51 52 64. What Mr. B. adds If all Nations should have become Churchmembers thâ—y should have been circumcised and then it had not been peculiar to the Jews and that Sichemites being circumcised would not have been subjeâ—t to Jacob and that when in Esthers time the people of the land became Jews they were not of the Jewish Commonwealth and under their Civil government is answered before sect 54. That which he saith p. 108. That he hath sufficiently proved that infants ought to be admitted visible Churchmembers hath so little truth that if the Reader observe it he shall find scaâ—ce any of his arguments so much as to conclude the admission of infants into the visible Church much less to prove it but that they are visible Churchmembers Whereby it is evident now which I could not observe in the Dispute that Mr. B. did leave the point to be proved that infants ought to be admitted visible Churchmembers and prosecuted another point instead of it that they are visible Churchmembers But enough is done in answer to that also which I pray the Lord to bless for the undeceiving of the people of these nations who have been so shamefully misled by Mr. Bs. toy of an ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed no where extant that were they not either willing to be deceived oâ— left to errour by God for their want of love to the truth they could hardly have been deluded by such vain arguing as he hath vented SECT LXXV My Arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 to be into the invisible Church by giving faith are vindicated from Mr. Bls. exceptions Vind. â—aed chap. 38. and Mr. Sidenham's Exercit. chap. 8 9. ALthough Mr. Bls. manner of disputing hath been shewed to bee such as requires not any full answer and would learned men compare as men that sought truth mine and his writings together they would perceive the insufficiency of his reply yet because I perceive some learned men do yet value his writings without good reason which oppose mine I shall add somewhat more to shew how short his writings are of weakening any thing of mine Vindic. â—aed ch â—8 sect 1. Having made an analasis of part of Rom. 11. from v. 16. he takes on him to ground several undeniable positions The third is the root of this tree viz. the first supreme universal root is Abraham Isaac and Jacob not Abraham alone so Ishmaelites would bee of the body Nor Abraham with Isaac alone so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in But the Apostle in this Chapter from Old Testament authority excludes both of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob are therefore joyntly the root Answ. 1. That Abraham onely is the root meant Rom. 11.16 17 18. I prove from Rom. 4.11 12 16. where Abraham onely and no other of the Patriarchs is termed the Father of believers But to bee the root Rom. 11.16 17 18. is all one with the Father of believers That the root notes a Father Mr. Bl yeilds that it notes not barely a natural father is proved in that the Gentiles should not be in that root if it notâ—d barely a natural father and that believers onely are branches of that root is proved from the text 1. In that their standing is by faith 2. That by unbelief some were broken off vers 20. which do plainly prove that they who were branches were believers who were unbelievers were not branches 3. That the partaking of the root could bee no otherwise then by faith nor any other way ingraffing can bee meant is manifest in that the Gentiles who had no other relation to Abraham as a father then by believing as hee did partake of the root and are ingraffed into the Olive Secondly To Master Bls. Argument I answer by denying that the Apostle doth in that Chapter or any other exclude the Ismaelites or Edomites from the body Job and other believing Edomites were in the root and Olive Yea if it were meant of the visible Church and natural descent Ishmael and Esau must be of the body who were of Abraham by natural descent and circumcised and so visible Churchmembers If Mr. Bl. deny they were in the body because they were not of Abraham Isaac and Jacob by this reason Isaac and Jacob should be excluded For they were not from Abraham Isaac and Jacob they were not from themselves and yet were branches and consequently they were not the root but Abraham alone the root noting such a Father as from whom all branches have descent His fifth position is the fatness of this tree is the glory of ordinances of which the whole Church partakes Answ. By ordinances hee means outward ordinances as Baptism the Lords Supper preaching the word c. By the whole Church hee means the Church visible For that is his tenet all along that the olive tree is the Church visible not the invâ—sible This is then Mr. Bls. position that when it is said Rom. 11.17 and wast partaker together of the root and fatness of the olive tree the meaning is thou Gentile Church or believer art made partaker of outward ordinances of which the whole Church partakes Now under the whole visible Church he undoubtedly comprehends infants and sure there is no ordinance of which infants are partakers according to Mr. Bls. tenet but Baptism so that then the Apostle according to Mr. Bls. exposition should mean no more by the fatness of the tree of which the whole Church partakes but Baptism Which is of it self so manifestly frivolous an exposition as that I shall not need of set purpose to refute it Though it is true there is a
children were broken off from the invisible Church in which the elect Jewes and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion taking it as he doth for ingraffing into the visible Church For saith he there is this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jewes as natural branches and the engraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jewes good and bad were called branches now onely believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their children are ingraffed into that root Which is enough to shew that the Gentiles were not ingraffed into the root or tree as the Jews by natural descent but by calling of the Gospel and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not ingraffed but so many as are called The ingraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream and is overthrown by this that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling not national but Congregational by voluntary Covenant nor can the Churches called Independent hold this which Master Sidenham and Master Cobbet and others of their way hold that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is sutable to that of the Jewes as being in their stead but they must hold a national Church whiâ—h quite overturns the frame of their Churches and the Reformation they contend for To his second argument the some that were broken off might be parents and children or parents and not children or children and not parents and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin or their parents according to Gods good pleasure onely But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter in the first part of this Review sect 4 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted understood of ingraffing into the Church invisible not into the visible To the fourth that the fatness of the Olive should note priviledges and outward advantages such as this that the child should be visible Churchmember with the father in the Christian Church or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal vertue to convey such Church priviledge or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17 is a meer fancy nor is there any thing Ephes. 3.6 or any where else in Scripture for it To the objection That now believers are onely branches Abraham onely the roote and therefore the argument holds not If the parent be holy so is the childe being understood of other then Abraham and his seed hee answers That yet the branches well ingraffed become natural branches and receive as much from the roote as those which grew naturally on it so Gentile believers must have the same priviledge and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may bee termed immediate rootes But hee doth not shew that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughes of trees rootes to lesser neither dare hee say the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root Rom. 11.16 and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant because the Apostle saith if the roote bee holy so are the branches because Abraham onely is the roote there As for Mr. Bls. saying I value it not it being without Scripture It 's sufficient for present to shew the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofes I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Churchmembership and Baptism was brought to this issue Whether the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 into the Olive tree be meant of joyning a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon so that none are ingraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments The first is That act of ingraffing to the Church which is made Gods act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency is and can be no other ingraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election But such is the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 as appears from v. 23. Ergo. Mr. Sydenham answers that to argue from Gods power to his will or to election or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is strange unsound in Divinity and reason But this is no answer For there is no such arguing made by me My arguing is none of those ways he mentions but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power without which it were hopeless and impossible to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead from v. â—5 which sure no act of man can perform But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men therefore the ingraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church but an higher act of giving faith according to election But saith he It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ in Jews and Gentiles to bring to outward confession To which I reply it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers specially backt with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperours as experience hath often shewed therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the ingraffing But saith he It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all nations To which I reply 1. The gathering them together into one place is not ingraffing them into the visible Church for ingraffing them imports joyning them to others but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves the gathering into one place is accidental to their ingraffing iâ—to their own Olive he ingraffing may be without it and if they go together it is likely the ingraffing will be before that gathering and therefore that gathering and this ingraffing cannot be the same 2. That gathering may be by the power and favour of Emperors and Kings as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem and therefore is not this act of ingraffing
v. 20. For the loss of standing in the visible Church needs not bee so much feared and a less care would serve turn to prevent it 3. That standing which would not prevent Gods not sparing is not the standing meant Rom. 11.20 For that would prevent Gods not sparing v. 21. But the standing onely in the visible Church by profession of faith would not prevent Gods not sparing Matt. 7.23 Ergo. 4. That faith and standing are meant here which in oâ—her places in that and other Epistles are meant by the Apostle when hee speakes of the same thing But in those places standing so as to persevere to salvation and justifying faith are meant as Rom. 5.2 and 14.4 2 Cor. 1.24 Ergo. 5. That standing and that faith is not meant of which it may bee said the root beareth them not verse 18. But of them who onely stand in the visible Church by a profession of faith it may bee said the root beareth them not For the rooâ— is Abraham and hee is a root or father to none but those who have justifying faith Rom. 4.11 12. Ergo. 6. By that faith the branches stand which is directly opposite to the unbelief by which others were broken off vers 20. But that was unbelief of heart and not of mouth onely ergo the faith is in the heart and not in the mouth onely by which the branches stand 7. That â—aith the branches stand by v. 20. by which they are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive But that is justifying faith as shall be shewed in the vindication of the next argument Ergo. Mr. S. takes upon him to prove it meant of the visible Church by profession of faith by some of Master â—s arguments which because they are answered already in the first Part of this Review Sect. 6 c. I let pass onely whereas hee saith Can any man conceive that they should boast because the branches the Jewes were broken from election and true faith that they might be graffed in by a new act of Godâ— election and by true and saving faith I answer though they might not thus boast yet they might boast that God having broken off the Jews had in their stead ingraffed them by giving saving faith according to his eternal election And to what hee saith from v. 20 21 22 23. What are they exhortâ—d to look least they bee cut off from Gods election c Will M. T. turn a downright Arminian that hee may have any plea against the baptising of poor infants I answer 1. that I scarse think that scribler did well know what Arminianism was and that I have sufficiently acquitâ—ed my self from that which is indeed Arminianism and better then his magnified Aurthor Mr. B. 2. That â—e might with as good reason impeach the Apostle of downright Arminianism in that he exhorts us to give all diligence that we make our calling and election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 Mr. Bl. when he cannot untie this knot endeavours to cut it asunder by this assertion after many words which need no answer That there is no such thing in all Scripture as ingraffing into the Church invisible by faith all ingraffing is into the body visible and therefore by a faith of profession And yet his three first arguments whereby hee would prove this proposiâ—ion do conclude no ingraffing but into Christ and consequently neither into the invisible nor visible which is directly to contradict his own saying All ingraffing is into the body visible But let 's view his proofs about this position conâ—erning which it pleaseth Mr. Bl. to enter into the lists with me 1. Saith hee All ingraffing is into that subject which immediately receives what is ingraffed as the stock receives the syens but it is CHRIST and not the Church invisible that receives the elect believer Christ dwels in us by faith so wee in Christ Ephes. 3.17 Answ. â—his argument is made by Mr. Bl as if hee on purpose meant to refute himself For 1. he wouâ—d prove there is no ingraffing of elect believers into the invisible Church but into Christ because hee onely receives the elect believers which if true it would follow First that elect believers are not ingraffed into the visible Church but onely non-elect professours of faith who are hypocrites and so the visible Church should have no elect ones in it but all reprobates Secondly iâ— the reason were good there should bee no ingraffing of profâ—ssors of faith into the visible Church contrary to his assertion that all ingraffing is into the body visible For it is Christ that immediately receives that is owns or acknowledgeth bare professours of faith as visible Churchmembers as well as he receives that is owns and acknowledgeth as his invisible members them who are ingraffed into his invisible body 3. If wee be ingraffed by that faith by which Christ dwels in us and we in Christ Ephes. 3.17 then we are ingraffed into the olive by that â—aith which is justifying for by no other â—aith doth Christ dwell in us nor wee in him nor is any other meant Ephes. 3.17 as is apparent from the text the prayer of the Apostle being not for a bare dogmatical faith which they had already but justifying persevering whereby Christ might dwell in their hearts by his spirit c. and the ingraffing is into Christ and consequently into the invisible Church But so it is by Mr. Bls. argument ergo 2. I answer ingraffing is a metaphor and it notes uniting or joyning and this joyning is not natural but spiritual or moral and may bee at a remote bodily distance and without the knowledge of those to whom the person is ingraffed and may be to Christ and to his invisible body or visible without any act of the Church visible or invisible which may bee termed receiving yea if Mr. Bs. position bee right Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 27. that a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it a man may bee ingraffed into the Church visible though neither hee know any other Churchmember nor any other know him and therefore I deny Mr. Bls. major proposition in his argumenâ— if understood as it must be if it be to the purpose of that metaphorical ingraffing which is Rom. 11.17 c. 2 Saith he All ingraffinâ— is into that which gives sap and juyce to the ingraffed as the stock from the root to the syens now Christ gives sap to the elect believing not the Church and therefore it is not into the Church but into Christ. Answ. 1. This argument also gainsays Mr. Bls. proposition that all ingraffing is into the body visible for it is not the body visible that gives sap to the elect believing or professors of faith but Christ and therefore by this argument there is no ingraffing into the body visible 2. Christ onely gives sap and
the ingraffing of the Gentiles What hee saith yet they shall be ingraffed as a visible Church and this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church taking as reduplicatively cannot bee true for then every visible Church should have all in it saved and for the reasons he brings to prove they are answered before the fathers are nor mentioned as roots but Abraham who is a root not of the visible Church aâ— such but of the invisible of true believers and they are ingraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church Mr. Bl. saith This arg well husbanded might have made three to the first I say that a Churchstate in Scripture phrase is salvation Job 4.22 seeing Churchmembers are partakers of saving ordinances And the fruition of ordinances under Gospel dispensations is a great salvation Heb. 2.3 And so that text Rom 11.26 And so all Israel shall be saved must be understood as I told Mr. T. p. 67. of my answer out of the last annotations and so Diodate Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26 All Israel shall bee saved that is they shall be in a visible Churchstate partakers of saving outward ordinances under Gospel dispensations But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning they shall be saved that is they shall be in such an estate in which they may bee damned and in which many are damned or that God where hee mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel means no more but such an estate Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10 c. Heb. 10.16 17. to have a meer visible Churchstate I did alwayes think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ thâ—t the Ministery thereof was of the spirit 2 Cor 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. not of a meer visible Churchstate And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted as Mr. â—l saith Isai. 59.20 Jerem. 31.34 there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them which is sure much beyond a visible Churchstate As for what he brings out of Scripture it is shamefully wrested For Joh. 4.22 a meer visible Church-state is not termed salvation but whether by it bee meant by a metonymy the doctrine of salvation or the authour of salvation Christ himself it is certainly another thing then a meer visible Churchstate yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a meer visible Church-state salvation and false to say thaâ— the visible Churchstate was of the Jewes And for the other text â—eb 2.3 it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel dâ—spensations great salvation but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 declared and offered in the Gospel Diodati annot on Heb. 2. â— So great namely everlasting redemption revealed and communicated by the Gospel and implâ—citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26 by put into the way of salvation yet they do not restrain this to a meer visible Churchstate yea both add that by all Israel may be understood the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 of Jews and Gentiles which is the invisible Church And Diâ—son thus parapâ—raseth the words And so all Israel that is the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted And Piscator in his Scholie The fulness of Israel shall be saved to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel is not to be extended to each but to be understood of the greatest part from which the denomination is wont to be made Mr. Bl adds And such men brought into a Churchstate are turned from iniquity partially from their former way of iniquity their contradicting and blaspâ—eming having escaped the pollution of the world 2 Pet. 2.6 of the world â—hat remains out of the Church of God Answ. 1 Were this the meaning yet infants should be excluded who are not thus turned 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant is manifest in that the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodlinesses that is all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob that is as Piscator in his scholie by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Sion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns Acts. 3.26 which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning More rightly Diâ—son thus paraphraseth the words He foretelleth that so it should be that the true redeemer should free his nation from the guilt and servitude of sin the iniquities of that people being pardoned and that it should be that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin But saith Mr. Bl. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc and when Moses prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel Exod. 32. and God promiseth it 2 Chron. 7.14 it is so to be understood of a national pardon Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin and releasing onely of some particular evil cannot be meant Rom. 11.26 27. sith it is a taking away of their sins by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Sion and according to Gods Covenant to them which 1. the same with that Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12 10.16 17. in which eternal redempâ—ion and inheritance are assured Heb. 9.12 15. I grant it shal be a nationaâ— pardon understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation but different from the pardon obtained by Moses Exod. 32. or promâ—sed 2 Chron. 7.14 To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites but none of the re-ingraffed Mr. Bl. replies The re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes and therefore were hypocriâ—es and formalists and the ingraffed such as might fall which is not spiritual Israel but carnal But the Text doth not say the Jews shall be re-ingraffed in their shead that sell away by multitudes but onely that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive in stead of the Jews broken off v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-ingraffed when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and both be ingraffed together not the one broken off to make room for the other as in the calling of the Gentiles v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith how doth it follow the re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes Ergo the re-ingraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites I conceive it follows rather on the contrary those that fell away were hypocrites therefore they that are ingraffed in their stead are living branches
other disputes against Prelates and Arminians and with thâ—se weapons which M. Bl. disdainfully like a Goliath terms reeds or bulrushes I am no more afraid to assault the Assembly of Divine at Westminster then to assault Bakewel Hussey and such like scriblers To my 9th argument from parallel places Mr. Bl. tels me Mr. Hudson pag. 132. hath not onely affirmed but proved that the Text 1 Cor. 12.13 is meant of the Church as visible Answ. I have viewed the place and find Mr. Hudson speaking thus in answer to the objection But this is meant of the invisible company of believers he saith it is true but it is spoken of them as visible So that Mr. Hudson affirms the same with me that 1 Cor. 12.13 must be understood of the invisible Church yet in respect of that which is there said of them something is spoken of them as visible To my allegation of Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs of the same body and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel not by an outward ordinance but by giving of faith according to election Ergo the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 parallel to it is not by an outward ordinance bâ—t by giving faith according to election Mr. Bl. thus in his flirting fashion answers Oh that Mr. T. spake truth then as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 All England in statu quo should be saved in the sense that Mr. T. would understand salvation whether we be by descent Brittains Saxons or Normans we are Gentiles and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by faith according to election Answ. Not so unless by Gentiles were meant every Gentile which a freâ—h man in the University would correct Mr. Bl. in who knows an indefinite proposition not to be equipollent to an universal incontingent matter It is said Acts 11.18 thâ—n hath God given to the Gentiles repentance unto life yet it follows nor he hath done so to every Gentile Mr. Bl. adds Sure I am this Text is meant of Gospel glory in ordinance dispensed by the Apostles ministery Answ. Sure I am that to be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakers together of his promise in Christ by the Gospel imports more then a meer visible Churchstate even an estate of righteousness union with Christ and inheritance of eternal life And I doubt not but many of his Auditors would correct Mr. Bl. if he taught otherwise at any Lecture of Christians of ordinary understanding Yet he he saith further And as to the Jews appertained the glory and the promises Rom. 9.4 5. so now the glory and promises belong to the Gentiles And as many Jews as fell not off still enjoy this glory with the Gentiles and so both make one new man Ephes 2.15 The visible state of the Jews was a distinct body from the Gentiles Now upon this glorious call they are one new man or new body Answ. The glory and promises meant Rom. 9 4 5. did never belong to the Gentile believers in the Christian Church nor do the believing Jews still enjoy that glory with the Gentiles though both make one new man yet not the meer visible Church is that one man or body but the Church invisible reconciled to God by Christs death as the Text it self shews Ephes. 2.15 16 17 18 19. Mr. Bl tels me The ingraffing is not by giving faith of election nor is it an act of admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance but it is by Gods giving of faith in and by Gospel ordinances to give assent to Gospel mysteries and make profession of them Answ. I have proved before it is more then the giving of an historical faith however this concession in the close serves my purpose For if this be the ingraffing then they onely that thus do assent and make profession are ingraffed But infants do not thus assent and make profession Ergo they are not ingraffed and consequently the Text Rom. 11.16 17. alledged by the Assembly Mr. G. Mr. M. c. for admission of infants with parents as with the Jews is brought obtorto collo plainly against the meaning of it What Mr. Bl. adds that Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. there is an ingraffing into Christ mentioned but none into the Church is as vain as the rest there being no ingraffing into Christ by faith but it is also into the Church invisible who is Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 The Scriptures I have produced are proved to be meant of the Church invisible because the things said in those Scriptures are such as agree to none other and they appear to be parallel by the indentity of the matter all expressing the state of Gentile believers upon their effectual calâ—ing It is Mr. Bls. false charge that the Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all arguments a pari This calumny is reâ—elled in the 2d part of this Review sect 3. As for my 10th argument whether the faith in the testimonies cited be meant of justifying and the election to eternal life needs no other decision then the very words which I took from Marlorat without searching into the Authors own books because I had them not of my own and I saw it needless to look further If the words be ambiguous the Authors intended to deceive if elsewhere they speak against me they gainsay themselves neither of which Mr. Bl. should charge them with if he regarded their credit In Mr. Bls. arguments sect 3. the first is answered before in vindicating my 4th argument I deny the major of the 2d which is answered in the 2d part of this Review sect 6. pag. 66 67. In the 3d. the minor is false that the priviledge of ingraffing is the priviledge of every member of the visible Church in that which is added to prove it to be the priviledge of ordinances if the major be universal it is false besides the argument may be retorted In the 4th I deny the major and have often answered the inference that then I must maintain falling away from true faith that by my exposition the falling away of particular persons from the true justifying faith they had in their own persons is not maintained but the falling away of the people of one age from that which their predecessors in a former age had In the 5th if the minor be meant of a casting onely out of a visible Churchstate it is denied nor is it proved Matth 21 43. For the Kingdome of God not onely notes the outward Churchstate but also the rule of Christ in their hearts and protection of them by his spirit In the 6th the conclusion is granted That which Mr. Bl. saith that the body of believing Jews and Christian Gentiles called by the Apostle one new man Ephes. 2.15 are capable of no other ingraffing then that which is visible and the body of them entitled new as the Jews
before onely to priviledges of ordinances is not true Nor is it true that in my speech recited by him pag. 312. is taken for granted 1. that the whole visible body of Christian nations are truly ingraffed into the Church invisible iâ— by whole body be meant all the parts oâ— every part 2. Nor is it true that it is taken for granted by me that in after ages the same body though not the same persons may be cast off and yet no particular person rejected without this explication that no particular person who was an elect person or true believer is rejected But against this 2d imagined grant of mine Mr. Bl. thus argues The 2d must be examined this Church thus cut off either continues in the invisible body as before or else is degenerate by the death of those numerical persons that made up a body invisible and succession of others that are no more then vâ—sible members If it continue in the invisible body till the time of breaking off then Mr. T. is not holpen with his distinction of a consistent and a fluent being nor with hiâ— similitude of Euphrates for so a Church invisible is still broken off and rejected and falling away is maintained If it be degenerate then 1. they fall off themselves and are not broken off by God their own sin thâ—n should be noted nor Gods act as their punishment But their breaking off or rejection is the act of God laying waste his Vineyard Isa 5. taking away his Kingdome Matth. 21 43. removing the Candlestick Ephes. 2.5 it should be Revel 2.5 All noting the act of God punishing upon the peoples act of sinning which is of the Church not invisible but visible 2. For the similitude of Cyrus his turning of Euphrates that he turned the same River that God created this will not serve Mr. T. his purpose for Euphrates continues a River of the same kind and nature as it was at the first creation and the Church in his expression is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professors The Church had changed her own channel 3. Mr. T. indeed grants the question for he confesses that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible Sect. 4. M Bl. adds these words That wild assertion pag. 19. That the branches were broken off from election and true faith and the invisible Church in which they were with this limitation understanding it not of the same singular persons but the same people or nation is a thread that runs through almost the whole and enough I suppose is spoken to it And when he shall shew me an invisible nation of which he speaks from which there may be a breach I will either yeeld â—p all or he shall hear more Till then I shall look on his words as such a unworthy the pen of such a Writer an invisible nation it must be a visible nation cannot be cut off from the Church invisible Answ. Speak out man let me know the worst you can say I expect no favour from you having found neither charity nor equity in your writings against mee The assertion is such as will endure your strongest battery what you say here is merre wrangling like a Sophister perverting my words when they are truly repeated though thy are very plain The Argument is quite from the matter The Conclusion is that the Church cut off is not the invisâ—ble Church but visible which is not contradictory to my assertiâ—n who never asserted that the Church cut ofâ— was the invisible Church but often asserted the contrary alwayes making the Olive tree the invisible Church to abide the same though some branches were broken off others were ingraffed as in the first part of this Review Section 9. page 83. with this explication page 66. yet not as a rock that abides the same but as a river which is in flux and I often deny in express termes as pag. 22 74. that my meaning was that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church but this I say that the Nation of the Jews of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisible Church as branches in the Olive in a continued succession in the time of the Apostle that people to wit the most part of that nation were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive tree in which that people in the individual persons of a former age did stand Which thing having been so often and so plainly expressed by mee in that book which Mr. Bl. takes on him to answer it is an extremely shamefull abuse hee offers mee in going about to refute that as my assertion which is disclaimed by mee Now this being premised and the term this Church as it should be being changed into this people or nation that is a great or the greatest part of them I answer they are broken off from the invisible Church in that the numerical persons that made up the invisible Church in a former age being dead the successors degenerated from their faith and were neither visible professors nor invisible believers in Christ which not believing was their own act from their own will yet consequent on Gods act of repâ—obation and the breaking off to wit the deprivation of them from the membership and priviledges of his invisible Church was Gods act of punitive justice for their unbelieving And thus the similitude of Cyrus his turning Euphrates serves my purpose to shew how I am free from holding Arminian Apostasie the same people like that river beeing turned from their old channel though not the same persons not as Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth mee that in my expression the Church is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professours or that the Church had changed her own channel Nor do I grant the question or confess that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible but what I say is of the Jewish people who had not so much as a visible interest when God brake them off or they fell off and the Gentiles are ingraffed into the invisible Church in their stead Nor need I shew an invisible nation broken off it being neither true that I spake of an invisible nation nor that a visible nation cannot bee cut off from the Church invisible but these are Mr. Bls. dotages for want of heeding mine and his own words as I conceive through hast to insert some thing against me in that book ere it was printed Which is so far from being enough to answer me that aâ— Solomon said of him that answered a matter afore he heard it so it
may be said oâ— Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause I conceive the election of bodies societies or nations in the sense I have often given may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers as into the visible Church of true professors and that the election of the Gentiles by which they were ingraffed was into the invisible Church of true believers Of Calvins and Bâ—cers words I shall say no more having not â—he books Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges Mr. T. sect 4. replies that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved which is that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised But by his favour he that concludes the whole concludes the parts of the whole Outward Church-priviledges is the whole baptism is a part of the whole concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury concludes also that his head and shoulders are And if any priviledge bee concluded then baptism is concluded which is the leading one among Church-priviledges Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury for so hee means I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole and consequently Baptism as a part Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper and Church office Nor is the other plea much better For some priviledge may be concluded as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did and yet not baptism For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith yet afore a person is a believer if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants it must be laying on of hands the Scripture giving no hint of any other The distinction I give in the first part of my Review sect 4. p. 28. is handsome being set down as it is by me there though Mr. Bl. carp at it for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term I may say of them if they may be so called and not rather legal Mr. Bs. words the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership and the repealing of the ordinance therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church there is no such revoking or repealing do justifie the title of the 6th sect of the first part of my Review That the breaking off Rom. 11.17 was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership as Mr. B. conceive which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me And his first reason the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief now unbelief is not in infants much less proper to infants serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off for unbelief is not in them and that infants of believers are not graffed in For as the deserving cause of breaking off iâ— unbelief which is not in infants so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith which is not in infants And when in his 2d reason he saith this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews that is the major part Now infants were not the generality they made not up the major part of that body this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality which he denies infants to be and therefore the body and genâ—rality may be ingraffed and not infants Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons specially when the breaking off is of a people nor is it usual to term thâ—se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were but might have been as when we are said to be redeemed delivered from hell to be cast out into outer darkness Matth. 8.12 though never in heaven But were not this right but non-sense yet Mr. â—ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually but such as are imaginable which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism as all Logicians know Yet what Mr. Bl. saith excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member But this here is the act of God which is by taking away the Kingdome by removing their Candlestick departing with his presence is right if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit as well as his word Which is to be conceived for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off and consequently the fâ—tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances And if it be not the Churches act but Gods by which there is ingraffing then infants are not ingraffed who have no act of God to ingraff them but onely that of the Church or administratour of Baptism Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership begun in the great Charter of heaven and continued is but vapouring Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it That the Jews were cast off for unbelief but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief which I denied and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous But the text assignes unbelief Mr. T. assignes no other cause then that must stand To which I reply and so it doth by my answer and yet I do assign another cause Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation To what I said that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21 if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off he saith we easily yeild his conclusion if he frame it in a syllogism that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off They could never be broken off that were never taken in A branch of a bramble was never broken off
though which I somewhat marvel at they follow therein the vulgar Latine For the Tigurine Divines note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek signifies the flock not the fold And Beza excepts against the vulgar for it and against the Romanists who would have that one fâ—ld to be Rome And Grotius observes that the speech is proverbial One flock one shepheard to which he makes Ezek. 37.24 to be like Now that the one flock is not the meer visible Church but the invisible it appears from many things in the Text that Christ laid down his life for them that they follow him hear his voyce his Father and he knows them distinguishingly from others who do not believe because they are not of his sheep that he gives them eternal life none can pluck them out of his Fathers hands v. 14 15 16 26 27 28 29. out of which many Protestant Divines gather absolute election particular redemption effectual conversion and perseverance against Arminians And Diodati in his annot on Joh. 10 16. hath it thus Other sheep namely the elect among the Gentiles who are to be called by the Gospel and incorporated into the Church with the elect of the Jewish nation One body 1 Cor. 12.13 one new man Ephes. 2.15 are the invisible Church as is shewed before Matth. 8.11 The Kingdome of heaven is the Kingdome of glory Matth. 21.43 The Kingdome of God is either the Gospel by a metonymy or the rule of God in their hearts which was taken from them that is that people with whose ancestors it was though not in those persons from whom it was taken The visible Church cannot be meant by the Kingdome for the fruits of the Kingdome are not the fruits of the meer visible Church they are not bare profession but real faith holiness and obedience which are fruits of the spirit not of the Church or if of any Church of the invisible not the meer visible And though all invisible members bring forth fruit yet that nation which had invisible members bringing forth fruit in a former age may in an after age not bring forth fruit and for that reason the Church invisible may be taken from them with whom it was in respect of their ancestors To what I said If the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews then they should have been circumcised c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Mr. Bl replies That is of no force as though we may not be in the same Kingdome and yet under a new way of administration Law-givers on earth are sometimes pleased to change their Laws and so doth the Law-giver of Heaven or if he will limit his instance to Circumcision taking in no other Laws The same house may have a new door or porch Let Mr. T. then know that he is in the same visible Kingdome as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel were Answ. That which Mr. Bl. saith of the lameness of a Kingdome under a new way of administration of Law givers changing their laws of Gods doing so the identity of a house with a new door is all granted but doth not take away the force of my reason unless he could shew that any were graffed or to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish without Circumcision if he were a male Doth not Mr. Bl. maintain here in answer to my 4th argument that we are partakers of the same outward priviledges and ordinances with the Jews as he expounds Rom. 11.17 which opposeth his speech here of a new way Doth not Scripture term the Jewish Church or people the Circumcision because those that were in that Church if male were circumcised Was not Cornelius taken for unclean and not of that Church because uncircumcised or was he ever in the Jewish Church after his Baptism God might admit into the Jewish Church another way then by Circumcision but Mr. Bl. cannot shew he or the Jews did so We are in the same invisible Kingdome of true believers and elect persons with Abraham Isaac and Jacob but I do not yet know by any thing Mr. Bl. hath hitherto said that I am in the same visible Kingdome with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel Every one in the visible Kingdome of Israel after the flesh did partake of the Passeover the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the the sacrifices partakers of the altar Which intimates that Israel after the flesh did then when he wrote eat of the sacrifices which Christians did not and therefore were not adjoyned to Israel after the flesh but in that very place v 16 17. distinguished from them I take Mr. Bls. assertion to infer Jadâ—ism and if he or any other be not satisfied by my answer to Mr. Cobbet I have more reason to impute it to their prejudice then to defect in my answer SECT LXXVI My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions Vindic. Faed ch 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit ch 7. MR. Bl. ch 39. avoucheth still his sense of federal holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 I proceed to view what he saith Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give I shall here transcribe it Let him not put her away let her not leave him unbelief breaks not the marriage bond â—enders it not a nullity Religion being not of the substance of marriage But what he saith that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles is fictitious For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself shews that their scruple arose not from fear of their childrens condition but the nullity of their marriage or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple Yea Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit when he saith Reason is strong for this for they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church state and condition being a priviledge communicable and descendable from parent to child If the parent were without and of the Gentiles the child was ever such and in case they were of the people of God their children were reckoned so in like manner Now parents being divided the one holy the other unclean they feared that the issue would follow the worser part a sâ—ain would lie upon them they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent In a like case it had been so determined Ezra 10.3 For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state they knew that the
either the rest is not a believers personal rest by faith or that it is of the same kinde with a meer weekly Sabbath dayes rest but rather the contrary It is distinguished from the seventh day Sabbaths rest and so it is also from the rest which the Israelites had by Joshuah's conduct in the land of Canaan which the Authour mentions v. 8. as well as the seventh dayes rest v. 4. and therefore the seventh dayes rest opposed to the rest v. 7 9. doth no more prove the day of rest to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh day Sabbath was then the day of rest in Canaan by Joshuahs leading Yea sith the seventh days rest mentioned Heb. 4.4 is onely Gods rest it is apparent the day of rest is of different kinde from an ordinary Sabbath dayes rest Neither doth the term although impart any such identity of kinde but that God spake of another rest of his athough hee had rested long ago when his works were finished from the foundation of the world Yea the words Heb 4.10 Hee that is entred into his rest hath also ceased from his works as God did from his which expresseth the rest for the people of God yet remaining v. 9. do shew that the day of rest is not till a mans works bee ceased which I know not how to understand of any other works then his works of labour and sufferings which are not till the end of this life and therefore the sabbatism or day of rest is not here the keeping of a weekly sabbath but a day of rest as is meant Revel 14.13 which though it bee not every dayes enjoyment yet it may bee a Christians personal test by faith onely that is that rest which by faith onely is entred into or obtained And though it were entred into by all believers from the foundation of the world yet it was not so conspicuously as when Christ entred into the heavens However those Hebrews and the believers to come after had not then entred into it That the Sabbath days rest was in use before proves against Mr. C. that the rest was not of the same kinde unless in manner of a type or shadow as one thing like that 's resembled by another may in a Catachrestique manner be termed of the same kinde with that which resembles Mr. C. adds Fourthly it is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in Gods house in his worship So the Apostle concludeth v. 9. There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the celebration of a Sabbath for the people of God a word comprehending the Sabbath and worship put together as was before observed And the coherence of the words Psal. 95. implieth as much Psal. 95.6 7 8. It appeareth also from the Apostles wherefore chap. 3.7 His house are we wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith To day if yee will hear his voyce c. So as if the question bee what voice Or what day The answer from the Psalm and from the Apostles inference must bee this the day of worshipping the Lord our Maker and of resting with him in his house and his voice whose house we are inviting us to it Answ. Sabbatism in the notation of the word imports no more then rest what it imports in the use of it I cannot discern but from this place sith I know not where it is used in the New Testament but here nor in any other authour afore this Here it appears not to import any more then rest sith it expresseth but what is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 8 10 11. though I conceive that the matter shews it to bee meant of a holy rest it being thâ— rest of Gods people But that the word comprehends rest and worship put together I do not conceive For the word aâ—ludes to the Sabbath Gen. 2.2 3. quoâ—ed Heb. 4.3 4. Now Gods â—est imported not worship though his appointâ—ng us to rest on the Sabbath and to sanctifie it doth import our worship of him Nor do I think the coherence of the words Psal. 95.6 7 8. doth imply that Sâ—bbatism Hâ—b 4.9 comprehends the Sâ—bbath and worship put together or thaâ— Psal. 95.7 To day if yee will hear his voyce is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his woâ—shiâ— sith in those words there is not the word Sabbatism and the Exhortation To day if yee will hear his voyce doth not appâ—ar to have been on the weekly Sabbath daâ— the Psâ—lm being not as the 94th Psalm intituled A Psalm for the Sabbath and it is more likely that to day if you will hear his voyce intimates the day at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles when all Israel was come to appear before the Lord in the place which he should chuse and the Law was to bee read before all Israel in their hearing Deut. 31.10 11. at which time of the year every year they had gathered in their Corn and Wine Deut. 16.13 and then they had no harvest and so it was the fittest time to resemâ—le the rest remaining â—o Gods people yet so far was it from being the weekly Sabbath day that as Ainsworth notes on Deut. 31.11 The Jewish Doctors say that if the day of the assembling of the people happened to bee the Sabbath day the reading of the Law was put off till after Yet were it the Sabbath day it doth not follow that it is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship for the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in the house of God that is the Tabernacle or Temple but in their dwellings Exod. 16.29 And therefore if the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore Heb. 3.7 did refer to whose house ye are v. 6. though I conceive the inference is made from the words if wee hold fast the confidence and reâ—oycing of the hope firm unto the end yet it proves it not to bee a weekly Sabbath of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship For the weekly sabbath was not celebrated in Gods house and if it were each Christian or the Church were not fit to answer Gods house in which it was celebrated sith they are not the place where that made the worship of God accepted as the Tabâ—rnacle or Temple that is proper to CHRIST and his body John 2.19 Heb. 8 2. but the persons by whom it is celebrated and who worship God Lastly were all this granted that Heb. 4.7 were meant a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship yet this might be meanâ— of the rest in heaven often called Gods house where the Elders cast down their crowns before God and worship and praise him and not the weekly Sabbath Fifthly saith Mr. C. Because the Apostle understands it of a day to be kept upon the same ground in
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
that Mr. M. perverts my words my arguing being no other then this Baptism is alledged as one of the means whereby we come to be compleat in Christ which Mr. M. denies not but avows as his sense therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of circumcision why the Apostle there mentions it which Mr. M. denied And this consequence however Mr. M. in his flout term it is good except it were true that every means whereby we are compleat in Christ succeeds circumcision the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr. M. in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are compleat in Christ Col. 2.12 which yet succeeds not circumcision according to him Mr. Ms. censure of my speech that the misunderstanding Col. 2.11 12. was an ignis fatuus as arrogant is shewed in my Apology sect 5. p. 29. to be injurious And what he saith in his Defence p. 179. of my position that circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Jews children is another injury in that he leaves out the words in sone sense which was set down a little before in my Appendix p. 174. which being added there is nothing in them contrary to the Text Gen. 17. but enough thence to prove my speech true What Mr. C. urgeth p. 81 from 1 Cor. 5.7 8. of the Lords Supper succeeding the Passeover That the Apostle could not have expressed by such phrases taken from the Passeover the celebrating the Lords Supper had not the Passeover and the Supper been the same for substance is not right For 1. that by keeping the feast is meant eating the Lords Supper is not proved and Beza Diodati the new Annot. with others paraphrase the words thus Let us lead our life 2. Our obedience gifts doing good are termed sacrifices yet these phrases prove not them to be the same in substance in Mr. Cs. sense 3. Christ is expresly in the Text 1 Cor 5.7 termed our Passeover therefore the Text makes the sacrifice of Christ to sucâ—eed the Passeover not the Lords Supper But Mr. Drew p. 3â— thinks to prove the succession of Baptism to Circumcision because as he saith in my Exercit. p. 3. c. I readily grant that Baptism is an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the same spiritual ends that circumcision did To which I say that all I grant there is that Circumcision and Baptism signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel but I added according to different forms and function and I ascribed no more to Circumcision then to the Paschal lamb the rain of Mannah c. But this is not the same with that which Mr. Drew injuriously imposeth on me Yet if it were it would not prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision as is before shewed and if it did it would as well prove its succession to the Passeover Manna the water out of the Rock c. which hee will not assert I think The rest which hee saith about Col. 2.11 12. is the same with what others say and hath been answered in my Examen part 3. sect 9. in my Appendix and in this section and in other parts of this Review As for Mr. Cotton who is one of those to whose writing Mr. Drew refers us for proof of Baptisms succession to Circumcision from Col. 2.10 11 12. his conceit is grounded upon this mistake in hiâ— book of Baptism p. 128. That the Apostle pleadeth our compleatness in Christ notwithstanding our want of circumcision in that wee enâ—oy the like fulness of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision which hath been often shewed to bee false For there is no mention of a benefit to the Jews but to the Colossians and this benefit was not bare outward Circumcision or any outward Church priviledge but the inward Circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh and this not by the Jews Circumcision but Christs circumcision in his own person nor is it true that the fulness of benefit there is ascribed to ordinary Baptism nor can bee rightly so conceived And what Mr. Cotton saith in the same place against those who say that Baptism being granted to succeed Circumcision yet it follows not infants must bee baptized That succession is the substitution of later things for former things in the same subâ—ect if the subject be changed so far as there is a change of the subject there is no succession and therefore if infants be not baptized as they were circumcised Baptism succeeds not circumcision is false and against himself 1. False for we know though there were a law made that after infant Kings al should be adult and after women Queens all should be male Kings yet they should be true successors as King James to Queen Elizabeth Henry the 7th to Edward the 5th or Henry the 6th 2. Against himself For thereby is proved Baptism doth not succeed circumcision sith there is a change in the subject women being baptized who were not circumcised and parents or masters of families being to circumcise but preachers of the Gospel onely to baptize As for what Dr. Homes to whom Mr. Drew also refers in his Annimadvers on my Exercit. p. 28 29. brings to prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision it 's upon alike mistakes For 1. it is not true that the Apostles scope Col. 2.12 in mentioning Baptism is to answer the objection Dr. Homes imagins and to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews because Christ hath appointed another sign to wit Baptism in stead of the Jews Circumcision 2. Nor doth the Apostle affirm or intimate that if we have not Baptism in the room of Circumcision to us Believers and our infants we are not so compleat as the Jews by Christ. 3. Nor is it true that the Apostle doth call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their Baptism as in the room of circumcision 4. Nor doth the Apostle make such analogy between Baptism and Circumcision as Dr. Homes saith he doth 5. Nor if hee did would this prove such a succession of Baptism to Circumcision as Paedobaptists would have that the command of infant Circumcision must be a command for infant Baptism Mr. Thomas Fullers argumentation for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision in all the essentials of it as he speaks in his Infants advocate ch 7. is alike vain For there is no inconvenience that I know to say no ordinance doth succeed Circumcision his talk of Sacraments being pillars of the Church is but phrasifying instead of disputing nor do I know how it can bee true Nor do I know that all or any graces Evangelical are conferred in baptism or were in circumcision of the Jewes much less that the conferring of such grace is essential to either of them nor is it true that Col. 2.11 12. Christians are said by Baptism to bee spiritually circumcised and by the same proportion the believing Jews
visible Church how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8 And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it a remote right to the initiatory seal but it doth not give an immediate right thereto for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onely giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order as of old strangers might not be circumcised but with some submission to that Church order explicitely or implicitely and so now and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th section determines to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized how do those of N. E. admit to breaâ—ing of bread those who who onely as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy without another baptism That either Matth. 28.19 20. or any where else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church is more then I finde nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might bee hindered from Baptism for trial for a time much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of thâ—m if their right were as Mr. C. doth though falsly imagine Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put 1. I shall endeavour yet fuâ—ther to confiâ—m it that covenanâ— interest carrieth a main stroak in point of application of that seal to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress or as I conceive the whole stress of the main case is put should have been delivered more clearly and confirmed more fully but as now it is it is delivered ambiguously and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism but the proofs following shew that he meant it of Circumcision and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism and so the Reader merely mocked The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to Gods applâ—ing it by way of command or mans by way of administration and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory sometimes meant of Gods application by way of command and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing The phrase of carrying the main stroak is likewise ambiguous and so delusory it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it And when he terms it the main stroak it had been requisite hee should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroak if not the main yet so great as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to bee applied Hee might have understood by my Examen which he had to answer that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that hee did not more distinctly tell what hee meant by the Covenant being in covenant which hee speaks of infants of believers And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly as one that sought truth and to shew my errour he should have cleared what Covenant hee meant inward or outward the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered or the mixt Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is how the Covenant of grace is invested with it when a Church is a political visible body how a Church covenant is the form of it who and what persons and how they are interested in it whether by Gods promise their own faith or profession or anothers or by the Churches admission All which or at least many of them are requisite to bee distinctly declared that a reader may clearly understand his meaning and so examine his proof And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect be meant onely because of the females circumcision or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings is and will be found the onely way of baptizing appointed by Christ is uncertain This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this which should be his meaning if he spake to his purpose That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace in that he is a believers child by vertue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit is a sufficient warrant to that visible political Church to admit and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God or profession of the infant Let 's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this First saith he then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seal and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing as circumcision and baptizing Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain Gen. 17.9 10. is no other Law but about circumcision the word rendred therefore may bee otherwise translated if it were the onely reading yet the sense might be this because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by mee much more is it a dotage to assert that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it as Mr. C. conceives so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church Secondly saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the form of a political visible Church body giving therefore both a Church-being as I may say as natural forms do a natural being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a church-body suitable to its memberly estate as if this of the Church initiatory seal even to the least member thereof although they are not
yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites do not deny that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such so that till that bee they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion and to submit to their rulers and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons who otherwise would bee unsetled in a fixed estate of communion yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be 2. That the Covenant of grace whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant that is as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be together with it is the form of a visible political Church which gives it the being of such a Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or Church power In which I conceive are many mistakes 1. That the Sacraments are seals or church dispensations are committed to the Church which are not committed to the Church which consists of men and women but to the guides and over-seers of it 2. That Church power or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes Matth. â—6 19 or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church but to the guides and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poliâ—ical Church they are not fit for church dispensations or censures which I conceive not true there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant as Mr. C. describes Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19 to be onely in and with such a Church nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition but rather the contrary 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned give the being of such a visible Church political But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being it is a promise of something future and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas but assures it shall bee by some cause in act which in this thiâ—g is the calling of God from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member as Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political though they should be dissolved the next hour and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church nor as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard of a pure Church but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted that they may not divide and scatter from each other but may continue in communion 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other and without tht Church covenant they can have no power But neither do I conceive this true For the power whiâ—h christians have is to reprove admonish censure shun society chuse officers reject false teachers c. this power they have by the laws of Christ without a church covenant 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these 1 Cor. 3.22 10.17 12.13 3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seal But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy and then joyn them us members by church covenant now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal then they should first enter into church covenant and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized 4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal and other church power But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17 1 Cor. 12.13 and have church power as others of their sex and rank Now all these suppositions though they were granted except the last would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion namely the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him infants making no such Church covenant nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread and other power
be baptizable That the Covenant Deut. 29.14 15. should â—e made virtually radically with us Gentiles is a doâ—age with a witness not onely the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses not the Covenant made to Adam Abraham David the New or better Covenant If the Covenant may stand in one then it is not necessary that a people nation seed body should be in covenant and consequently it may stand without infants The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16 the Fathers were the root But Mr. Rutherfurd adds Hence Anabaptists without all reason say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness but of real internal and true holiness onely of the invisible body predestinated to life for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were without doubt a part of the rooâ— Answ. Anabaptists if we must be so named do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16 is meant of real internal and true holiness and consequently the persons there said to be holy are all of the invisible body predestinated to life and no other but such there meant yet they deny not that the holiness of the Covenant and Church theâ—e meant were made visible by its working the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life and that it is not said without all reason might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd if he had read my Examen part 3 sect 7. my Apol. sect 14. pag. 67. Review part 1. sect 1 c. part 3. sect 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds that invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were withoue doubt part of the root that which Anabaptists say is not said without reason and that demonstrative For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded then it is included and if included together with external visible holiness then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy and consequently no reprobate but onely the predestinate to life And if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be part of the root and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy must have invisible holiness also But Mr. Rutherfurd ads Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church as made visible and of the visible collective body of the Jews not of onely real and invisible holiness 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias If the root be holy the branches are holy And it is a New Testament-truth of perpetual verity If the Fathers be holy so must the sons The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Supper so have the children but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onely and of real and internal holiness For neither in Old or New Testament is it true if the Fathers be predestinated to life justified and sanctified and saved so must the children be Answ. The term holy Rom. 11.16 notes onely real and invisible holiness in that place though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary If the Fathers be holy so must the sons is most false not onely being understood of invisible but also of visible holiness of Churchright to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Suppâ—r Though the father were holy visibly by profession of the God of Israel yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision and the Passeover without being a Proselyte of righteousness taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe and joyning to the policy of Israel and yet even then the child of age who did not avouch the God of Israel had no right thereto Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bapâ—ism or the Lords Supper without his own profession though the parentâ— be Christians nor the infant of a believer baptized as they conceive right to the Lords Supper Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root meâ—nâ— Rom. 1.16 and every natural child a branch For then every believing parent should beare his child v. 18. and every natural child shouâ—d derive holiness from his believing parent Abrahams naturâ—l children at this day are not in the Olive nor shall be till re-ingraffed Abraham is the root not as a natural father but as Father of believers and â—one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means but through â—aith according to election Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward child of the flesh and promise taken away nor whole Israel certainly saved Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong which â—e miâ—ht have imagined would be replied to hiâ— argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity but old That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith which may be discerned by their profession in those that are come to age It is neither my Divinitâ— nor follows though Mr. Rutherfurd câ—nceives it doth on it that predestination to life and glory must bee proâ—ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits he meant from the first fruits to the luâ—p from the root and parents to the branches and children But this I say that faith and righteousness are propagated and derived from â—braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him I do not say that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body but this I say the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people the one Jews who were then broken off from the Olive tree which is the invisible Church of the elect the other Gentiles then graffed in yet not all the Gentiles nor one nation wholly and entirely but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away were preached to had a national election and external calling were in the room of the Jewes â—id partake of the fatness of the Olive is so fully opened in the places before cited that I think it unnecessary to add here any more Onely whereas he makes it an absurdity that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
faith of Elders keep to the end which are most fitlâ— appliâ—d to doctrine make more probâ—ble as I noted in my Apology § 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon in which men speak not exactly as in other writings 2. The words hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit could be known onely by guess and conjectural presage it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told and therefore the other speeches as likewise other speeches as that tom 7. de pecc mer. remiss l. 1. c. 24. shew was his wont are to bee conceived as spoken not out of any good records but from that which he found observed in his time where he had been 3 Because serm 14. de verbis Apost he saith that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit though he onely set down what waâ— determined in that Council of Carthage which was in the third Century 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false uncertain contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions universal observations that many Protestants have discredited them of which some testimonies are set down by me in my Pâ—aecursor sect 3. Salmasius appar ad libr. de primatu pâ—pae menâ—ions some other as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church and yet were deceived Hierome saith it was in all the world decreed that one should be a Bishop over others and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories shews it waâ— otherwiâ—e in Scotland of old And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1 6. hee makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter c. of eating the Lords Supper fasting as always universally observed in which he was mistaken Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument as if I had said Easter was always held my words were If Austins rule were true then Easter should be from the Apostles not because I thought it true but because Austin thought so and so by his rule Easter must bee counted to come from the Apostles and his testimony is as good for it as for the universal observation of inâ—ant Baptism 5. Not onely Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients as amply as infant Baptism Jewel Sermon at Pauls Cross p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants which is yet also practised by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia The Church of Rome upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise The putting milk and honey into the mouth of thâ—â—aptized the standing at prayer on Lords days between Easter and Whitsontide the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent with many more are now left though Bellarmin l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tels us Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos absolvendi pâ—nitentes in paschaâ—e verum est apud Lutheranos caeterùm apud Catholicos ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur which I mention to shew that there arâ— some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing â—p Jewel Deâ—ense of the Apology of the Church of England part 2. ch 16. div 1. saith there have been errours and great errours from the beginning hee mentions there and in the Sermon at Pauls cross baptizing for and of the dead giving the Communion to the dead body and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole he rejects customs of the ancient Church and condemnes carrying home to the absent the Communion mixing water with the wine and many more things and still requires the Lords Supper and Baptism to bee administred according to the institution of Christ which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever shew to have been of infant Baptism I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Pauls Cross I am content to yeild and â—o subscribe otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptistâ— by accusing mee as opposing the universal Church in Austins sense though I deny it to be true do but conâ—emn themselves who with Papists dâ— reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 aâ—es Apostolical and of universal observation near the Apostles timâ—s Nor is the 〈◊〉 prâ—pâ—sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the â—postles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in doâ—â—rine or disciplâ—ne For if the whâ—le Church might err so in one age it may also in all â—ges câ—llectively considered the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colleâ—â—ively considered then in each age distriâ—utively considered nor anâ— means given to them after the Apostles colleâ—â—ively considered to keep from errour then to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more meanes to keep them from errour then other ages yet they erred in doctrine and discipâ—ine as many writers shew about Easter the Millenary opinion anâ— many other As for the promise Matth. 16 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible the gates of hell have and do prevail against them but of the invisible and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but that they shall not erre finally to damnation which if they did then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them that is as Cameron rightly in his prâ—lection they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13 to the whâ—le Church but to the Apostles the promise being as well to shew them things to come as to lead them into all truth And yet the promise iâ— not so maâ—e to the Apostles but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching they were so guided as that they should noâ— err But of this point of the militant Churches erring I need say no more but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Rainold thesi 3. 6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally pâ—actise infant Baptism yet neiâ—her were the present doctrine or practise justified by it but condemned and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to pâ—eaâ— against the universal Church as my self For it is manifest from the places whâ—re there iâ— mention of it in the Ancients that they â—aught it and praâ—â—iâ—ed it onely upon the opinion of the necessity of iâ— to save an infant from perishing and because the very baptism did give grace remission of original sin made believers heirs of the â—ingdome of heaven and accordingly they practiseâ— it onely in case of danger of death very seldome and this they did to unbelievers children as well as believers 〈◊〉 a
that were excluded from and received into the Church the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides as also the uncleanness and holiness and the proportion lying onely betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on Answ. Were it so yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 after the Drs. minde For it is not the fitness of an expression that must prove the sense we would but the use and the matter of the speech in which the Drs. expositions are defective But the holy Ghost no where that I know resembles the meer visible Church by the tabernacle but the invisible in which the spirit of God dwels or rather every believing Saint 1 Cor. 3.16 17. 6.19 Heb. 3.6 1 Tim. 3.15 or the body of Christ Joh. 2.19 Heb. 8.2 or heaven Heb. 9.24 and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness is such as excludes and the holiness such as admits into communion with God union with Christ entrance into heaven 2 Cor. 6.16 17. Revel 21.27 and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings is that which is invisible by the spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 not meer outward baptism and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness The Dr. adds As for his question of Cornelius it is most vain the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion fearing praying c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jews which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius These be pitifull sophisms and in no reason farther to be insisted on Answ. All the discourse is not about meere relative sanctification sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 by being converted to the faith and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification But were all the discourse about relative sanctification yet the question was not vain but attains the end for which propounded sith Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter Acts 10.14 was not out of the Church of God no not out of the Church visible being of good report among all the nation of the Jews Acts 10.22 though he were not in the policy of Israel and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism of which is enough said before Nor are any of these things I alledge sophisms but plain answers nor any otherwise pittifull then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatioâ—s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14 in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ and Augustin l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before And Hieromes different interpretation is that which is in the comment on 1 Cor. 7.14 in these words left out by the Dr. Item ideâ— vir uxor invicem sanctificantur quia ex traditione Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae mentioned here before sect 92. And Ambrose or who ever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom 4. sancti sunt quia de conjugiis legitimis natis both which agree with my exposition The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum the latter if it call Baptism sanctification yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus sanctified id est Baptized which yeelds such a sense as the Dr. will not own and is shewed before not at all to be satisfied by him Neither the antiquity of Cyprian nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect How much Tertullian whom Cyprian counted his master and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned mistook the meaning of Scripture and generally the Fathers may be discerned by their writings remaining or if any list to take a short cut to satisfie himself he may see much in Sixt. senens Biblioth l. 5. and 6. In the 4 th ch sect 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defence there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before Onely I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defence because he doth so often tell me that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises SECT XCVI The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian Baptism as Dr. Hammond would have it CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defence Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving though it were his own term qu. 4 § 21. the more imperfect ways of probation tels us though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with Gods institution of circumcision among the Jews and so certainly invalidates all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. T. drawn from the incapacity of infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of infants c. And this the rather because the Apostle compares â—aptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. â— 11 12. and then adds some savings of Fathers which are of no validity for his purpose of the other thereâ— nothing true For the arguments drawn from incapacity fore going necessity of preaching qualifications have their force from the institution of Baptism by Carâ—t which lye not at all against the circumcising infants which hath another institution and hath no analogy with Baptism to acquiâ— infant Baptism for unlawfulness or unfitness except the Dr. can prove which I am sure he can never do that the Church as in the prelatical language he useth to speak hath power to make that lawfull and fit to be done in the Sacraments of Christ which is otherwise thâ—n Christ hath appointed The Apostle doth not at all compare baptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. But these things are so fully argued Review part 2 sect 5 c. here sect 8 that till these sections are better answered then Dr. Hammond doth here the arguments will be valid against Infant Baptism The force of the Drs. urging Christs actions to little ones Mark 10.16 Matth. 19.14