of actual circumcision to infants whereas by their own confession it onely proves necessarily a virtual and if so how can it prove necessarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other Now the force of this objection is not at all weakned by his reply For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression that the one was as fit as the other but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause if they assert no more from the covenant but a virtual circumcision But had I said you may as well say which yet I find not in my writings but we might grant we may say Examen page 37. by like perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4. the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions for there is no more proof for the use of this speech that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males then for this infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents neither being used in Scripture and reason being as much for the one as the other And though those that were infants when grown being believers are to be baptized yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism then females were from actual circumcision Mr. G. proceeds thus For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight daies old I answer that they were particularly tyed to that day whether for the Theological reason Levit. 12.2 3. or for the Physical reason that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant or till the seventh that is the Critical day was over or whether to typifie the resurrection we cannot determine but till that day they were expresly excluded yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant that were not expresly excluded were circumcised which is enough for my purpose And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day is too short to reach up Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose which was to prove the seal did follow the covenant and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision unless he can prove that all that were in covenant and in the Jewish Church were circumcised But his own grant That some in the Covenant and Jewish Church as females and males under eight daies old were expresly excluded overthrows his own position and is enough for my purpose to prove that all in the covenant were not circumcised The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised whatever it were is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage but against him sith it doth more fully shew that God would not have them circumcised Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years or so which goes upon his mistake as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism it being brought only to shew a reason of my denial of his assertion that the seal did follow the covenant It is enough for me that I prove as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. c. that the rule is that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers and that infants are not such Mr. G. addes Your third instances are of Adam Abel Noah page 36. of your answer and Melchisedec Lot Job pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham and so before the institution of seals or such of them that were with or after him either they join not themselves to that administration and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision as other proselytes did And so indeed it is averred of Iob that he was circumcised by the Author of the book of true circumcision which is ascrrbed to Hierom cited by Iunius in his animadversion on Bellarmine Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13. Answ. Master Geree doth make shew of answering my allegation but doth indeed confirm my proof that sith Abel Noah Melchisedec Lot and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace yet had not any initial sign or seal as M. Geree calls it to seal the Covenant and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace therefore there is not such a connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace that persons were circumcised but Gods special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command If one Author conceive Iob was circumcised many do conceive otherwise and there are more probable reasons he was not sith there 's no mention of his circumcision or his observing any of the rites of the Law or of any acquaintance he had with Israel or any thing else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel Master Geree saith further And wheras you say Lastly that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance I answer the reason is evident because baptism was a seal of a new administration and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant before they could be baptized Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree who as before had given the reason why Melchisedeck Lot Iob were not circumcised though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration or their not uniting to the Church in Abrahams family so here again he doth not only grant what I allege but gives a reason of it also and such as quite overthrows his dispute For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be â—aptizâ—d without faith and repentance then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance and if baptism were a seal of a new administration then it must have a new rule and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism if Lot the Proselytes of the gate though in
defective in tenderness of conscience fear of God love of truth charity to a brother common modesty after his usual fashion of making out-cries without cause but could not then câ—ear it having not then so well understood his opinion nor his shifting of the terms nor being able to shew it for want of a Notary and time to view his arguments he being also very quick in urging and pressing me to answer without allowing time to weigh his arguments and therefore after much altercation concerning his meaning gave way to his proof of the Law of visible Church-membership unrepealed and neglected to keep him to the proof of the Law of admission unrepealed to mine and the Causes great disadvantage Whether Mr. B. did fraudulently or ignorantly manage the Dispute belongs to God to judge though I must needs say that I did then and do still suspect he was not free from deceit or dolus malus in it finding in a Copy I have of the Dispute That he distinguished then between visible Church membership and admission As for my self had I perceived so clearly as now I do his mind about the kind of visible Church-membership and admission of infants he asserts I should have stuck to this That though infants could have been proved visible Church members according to the Law he pretends unrepealed yet were they not to be admitted by Baptism which is appointed onely for visible Church-members by profession of faith And therefore whereas he saith he contends more for infants visible Church membership then Baptism and makes thaâ— the very heart of the controversie I conceive otherwise and do let him understand that were it not that I know that he hath very much abused me and others in that which follows I should think my tenet not overthrown nor much regard it though his Law of infants visible Church-membership were yeelded and my answer to his arguments omitted But sith things are as they are I resolve to go on The Antecedent saith he hath two parts 1. That by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church This is as far beyond all doubt as you can expect 1. Mr. T. granted it in his publick Dispute and so he doth in his Apology pag. 66. where he saith I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews the infants were reckoned to the Church yet lest any should be so impudent as to deny it I briefly prove it thus 1. If infants were part of them that entred into Covenant with the Lord God and into his Oath that he might stablish them for a people to himself and he might be to them a God then infants were part of the Church But the former is plain in Deut. 29.10 11 12. to any that will read it Therefore infants were part of the Church Answ. What I did I still grant that infants were part of the Jewish Church and were circumcised but the conclusion Mr. B. infers from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not that which Mr. B. should prove For it is not all one to say Infants were part of the Church and by Gods mercifull gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church Nor doth Deut. 29.10 11 12. prove either infants were part of the Church or their admission Their entring into Covenant was not by any act of their own but by the Elders or parents who in like manner Covenanted for the unborn v. 15. who could not thereby be visible Church-members being not then existent and therefore the Covenant there made them not visâ—ble Church-members Nor is there any proof of their admission thence they were admitted either after or before the Covenanting was not their admission for admission is the act of some person that hath that trust or office commited to him but their Covenanting was the pâ—rsons own act and if it did admit the infants then it did admit the parents Elders Captains and so they did admit themselves which is absurd and the establishing them for a people to himself is no more then as Piscator rightly Schol. in Deut. 29.13 That he might require from thee the worship of himself by obedience towards his precepts and so may binde thee to himself So the obligation of the people precedes and he might be to thee a God that is may in like manner promise to thee that he will follow thee with his grace and do thee good and so make thee happy So Gods promise followes It was a Covenant neither to make nor admit them visible Church members but to engage them to obedience and to assure them thereupon of protection and blessing and this extended to their posterity v. 15. who could not be then visible Church-members or admitted then as being not existent 2. Saith Mr. B. If infants were engaged to God by the seal of his Covenant Circumcision then they were members of his Church But some infants were so engaged therefore they were Church members this is all undeniable I never yet met with any that denied either Answ Circumcision is not stiled in Scripture the seal of the Covenant but I grant that infants were members in the Jewish Church visible admitted by Circumcision and engaged thereby though not by their own act yet according to Gods injunction and severe exaction to keep the Law and tâ—is is the onely proof of their admission Mr. B. brings out of the old Testament He adds 3 If infants were part of those that were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea and drank the spiritual drink even of that rock which was Christ then sure they were part of the visible Church But the antecedent is plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. They were all baptized c. Answ. I deny the antecedent to be plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. and have proved the contrary to be true in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 21. whither I refer the Reader 4. Saith he the Martyr Stephen calleth that assembly whereof they were members the Church in the Wilderness Acts 7.38 Therefore they were Church members Answ. The conclusion and proof is granted but I observe that the conclusion to be proved is altered from this by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church into this infants were Church members part of the visible Church The 2d part of his antecedent which he saith is the onely thing I deny and which the whole weight of this argument lieth on is that this merciful gift of God to infants and ordinance of Church membership is not repealed and he saith he hath here the negative and the proof lies not on him yet he will examine my proofs and then prove the negative by a multitude of evident arguments from the Scripture that he hath shewed Scripture not questioned for it and that he may justly expect plain Scripture or argument to prove the repeal of that Law Answ. He hath shewed
I throw down my weapons or forsake my cause by my answer then to this argument is but Mr. Bs. dream Of what alteration there was of the terms of his argument he must bear the blame who would not give me his arguments in writing under his own hand nor am I to be blamed for drawing it so short being fearful to wrong him by a fuller reciting And I perceive I had great cause so to do when I finde Mr. B. himself altering the terms of his own major in a few lines in the former it is except it be to give a greater in its stead in the later except that they may have a greater in stead which are not the same And for my answer if my terming his arguments petty reasonings had been mine onely answer yet it had been a good and sufficient answer if this be granted which I conceive an evident truth that of Divine institution and such is this of visible Churchmembership there is no reason can be right but what is from Gods own appointment though it may seem right to us it should be so Papists argue that if God did not make one oecumenical Bishop as there was one High Priest among the Jews to preserve unity non satis discretuâ— esset he should not be discreet enough Now this seems to our reason plausible and yet we justly say that in things positive our reason is deceivable and Gods appointment onely is to be attended And so it is in this though this reason of Mr. B. seem plausible yet it were no forsaking the cause though I could not answer it any otherwise then thus It is Mr. Bs. petty reasoning from his own conceits of what he imagines fiâ— in a matter of meer institution concerning which it is nevertheless manifest from the History of the New Testament that God hath appointed otherwise then is Gods way according to his reason which indeed is but arrogant presumption when it prescribes to God But I shall answer his argument more amply And though I did not deny his major iâ— the Dispute or Sermon I say if it be understood oâ— a greater mercy in the same kind and to the same persons it is not true the believing Jews were deprived of their possessions in Judea in mercy yet had not a greater meâ—cy in the same kind but another in the gifts of the spirit it was in mercy that the Priests converted to the faith were deprived of their office in the Temple and their children of the portion of the offerings there which were mercies to them and yet no such office or portion provided for them and their children but the benefit redoundâ—d to the Gentiles converted whose conversion was prayed for by David Isaiah c. and was a mercy to them though their posterity might be broken off and the national Church dissolved I conceive that Gods ways are so free and various in this kind that Mr Bs. maâ—or cannot be universally true not is Mr. Bs. reason cogent For suppose God annihilate in mercy there is no greater mercy given yet Hell is not turned into Heaven and made the greatest place of mercies in this case there is a meer deprivation of mercy in mercy But the thing is more apparent in deprivations of some temporal benefits God may deprive in mercy that is not in judgement of some temporal benefit meerly because he will out of his freedome to dispose of his own yet give no greater mercy in stead of it then he should have had if that had not been taken away and that God doth not do so who can say me thinks the Apostles determination Rom. 11.34 should satisfie that he doth And yet Hell should not be the greatest place of mercies for there is not onely a privation of temporal but also of spiritual and eternal mercies and that too with accumulation of torments which is otherwise in the case proposed And for the particular mercy of Church-membership the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was but a temporal mercy and a comparative mercy in respect of the nations it neither certainly assured their eternal nor present welfare yea when Christ came considering how the nation of the Jews was against Christ it was then rather their danger then their mercy and was a recompenced sufficiently in being out of that Church which consisted of a rebellious and gainsaying people and being though not visible Churchmembers in the Christian society yet in the families where the spirit of God was given and Christ known Mr. B. adds 2. And observe next that as Mr T. denieth not the major so here be plainly grants the minor and so yeelds the whole cause For the minor was that here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership Doth not Mr. T. acknowledge this when be saith twice over 1. That it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have their infants put out of the Church And so if the mercy be onely to the catholick Church that they be none of the Church visible then it is not to them a mercy So that he taketh it to be a mercy onely to others but none to them according to this answer 2. Yea he saith it more plainly the second time that it is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge much less a greater mercy be to them to the infants themselves So that for my part I think I may well break off here and take the whole cause as yeelded For if it be no mercy to any to be deprived of mercy except that they may have a greater And if infants have no greater in stead of this but onely their parents have a greater and both these be confessed then it must follow that it is no mercy to infants to be deprived of this mercy of their Churchmembership and consequently God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good which is the thing I am proving And Mr. T. yeeldeth that it is not taken from them in justice to their hurt and therefore it is not taken from them at all And thus you see what is become of the cause that hath been driven on with such confidence Answ. However I onely denied the minor in the Dispute and Sermon yet Mr. B. may see by the answer before that here I deny his major in the first argument in this chapter yea and that he can prove that it is not in justice that the Churchmembership visible Jewish ceased though I stil adhere to it that it was in mercy and of this argument I have here denied the major though I did not so before and am ready to shew that I have not yeelded the minor nor any whit of the cause and therefore suppose Mr. B. hath need to manage his weapons better ere he gain this cause yea though he should have this argument yeelded yet the cause is not gained for the reason before given But let us view his minor and my answer His minor is that
do all expresly tell how God severed Abram from the Chaldees how he made his house his Church promising to encrease and to settle it and neither Moses nor the Levites nor Stephan do go higher in the narration of Gods calling of the Hebrews to be his people And I think it safest to go no higher then the Scripture What Mr. B. adds after shall have answer in its place He adds So Exod. 19.4 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Egypt did make Israel a Church or the infants or any others members of it But onely that by fulfilling a former promise in the deliverance of a people formerly his own he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies The same I say of Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 I will not believe yet but that you believe your self that the Israelites and their infants were as truly Churchmembers before as after their deliverance out of Egypt And mee thinks the texts you cite might put it out of doubt What if God say Hos. 11.1 When Israel was a childe I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Egypt did make him his son that was none before or to prove that Israel was Gods son before he called him out of Aegypt If you should maintain the former I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself to whom the Evangelist applieth this text and so you may prove as fairly That Christ was none of Gods son till he was called out of Egypt but was made his son by that call Certainly the Text termeth him Gods son that was called as being so before that call By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine and try whether it be a Transeunt fact or a Law and Covenant that made infants and all others Churchmembers and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it and go so far on such a ground yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable non sense or absurdities then let them still follow you in the dark for I expect not that reason should recover them Answ. My conceits were and are still that infants were onely visible Churchmembers in the Church of the Hebrews or Congregation of Israel and that they were such not apart by themselves but as they were a part of that people which God took for his Church which made a peculiar Commonwealth and Chureh to God consisting of the same persons This God did not by a promise to be God to the faithful and their seed as the sole efficient and a precept of the parents to accept of this offered mercy and to dedicate them and re-engage them to God as Mr. B. conceives but by a transeunt fact containing many acts of Gods providence whereby they were severed from other people and appropriate to God The prime act of Gods providence whereby God brought this to pass was Gods calling of Abram out of Uâ— whereby he severed them from idolaters and by degrees establâ—shed his worship in Abrahams house upon which followed a long tract of providences which I mentioned as tending to the same end And this calling of Abram I refer the beginning of that people and Church to and I think I follow therein the Scriptures The other chief act of providence was Gods calling of Israel out of Egypt wherein I comprehend all the acts mentioned by me in my Letter which followed by which I said it was completed and to that end I alleged many as I concâ—iâ—e express texts not to prove that they then began to be Gods people as Mr. B. contrary to my plain words insinuates but to prove that then they were completed that is completely severed from other people and formed into a Church or Commonwealth with Lawes distribution of Offices order and other things requisite thereunto which they had not before And thus I interpret their bringing to God Exod. 19.4 the bringing them up out of the land of Egypt to bee their God Levit. 11.45 their redeeming to bee his people Nehem. 1.10 their calling out of Egypt Hos. 11.1 That is from a miserable state among idolatrous oppressors to be a people of themselves in a complete state of liberty under Gods rule which I conceive described by Ezech. ch 16. under the similitude of a childe cast out relieved and educated If Mr. B. can shew any non-sense or absurdity herein it is surely that which the plain Scripture affords or else I am in a dream and if Mr. B. bee awake I think hee may espie non-sense and absurdity manifold in his conceit of visible Churchmembership as a right to a benefit of such a Covenant and Condition and Precept which hee imagines to confer it I am willing Mr. Bs. Doctrine and mine bee compared though I lay so little weight on this point that I think if I bee mistaken neither is Mr. Bs. cause gained nor mine lost I would have none follow me in the dark nor would I have men befooled by Mr. Bs. misrepresentations of me and others much less by his frivolous Rhetorick in which hee discovers a great deal of prejudice rashness confidence and intemperate zeal with which I think him so drunken that I doubt whether reason will recover him till some providence of God bring him to see his folly which I think will much appear in that which followes on which nevertheless I conceive hee builds the main or whole of his Cause of Infants visible Churchmembership SECT LVII Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26 27 28. or Gen. 3.15 I Come now saith Mr. B. to the 8 th Qu. that is to speak to the point which you propounded You urge me to cite to you the particular texts that contain this Law Ordinance Precept or Covenant To which I answer thus 1. There are two sorts of Laws one which firâ—â— make a duty the other which suppose it so made and do onely call for obedience and excite thereto or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto If I could sheâ— you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty or granting the priviledg of Churchmembership it were noâ— the least disparagement to my cause as long as I can shew you those following laws which presuppose this You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of Where then was Gods will manifâ—sted about such things as this but in tradition and nature If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit then what need he make a new law about it or why should
promise that the seed of Abraham should possess the gates of their enemies though his exposition be granted I see not what advantage it gives him for proof of infant Baptism and therefore let it pass onely I take notice that when p. 43. he makes the multiplying of the seed of Abraham and the conquest of the world to be a spiritual work to be effected by the sword of the spirit the word of God it follows that it is to be done by preachers rather then by parents and consequently not in that way Mr. C. imagines but in the way which Christ took by sending his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature What he saith p. 45. of the meaning of Gen. 9.26 hath been shewed before to be uncertain and to be proved false by the History of the Church in that in Affrica the posterity of Cham were in the Church of Christ as well as Shems and Japhets posterity and how Abrahams seed shall fill the world at last and rule over it is so doubtfull as that I conceive no certainty can be thence deduced The conceit of the four Kings Gen. 14. as if their people became afterwards the four Monarchies is such a fancy as a waking man that knows the distance between Rome Greece and Canaan and the voyage they must take by sea and other circumstances which the story Gen. 14. and other Histories suggest will take onely for a dream Mr. Cs. gloss p. 50. on the words of Christ Mark 10.15 Who soever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child that is as a child receiveth it shall not enter therein whether he mean iâ— of the visible Church or Kingdome of glory it cannot be true For let the way of entring the Kingdome of God be by birth or Baptism or any other way yet a true believer by faith and profession may enter into the Kingdome of God in a way different from that a little child receives it in who hath no understanding of Christ And though both be passive in the first work on their souls yet believers of age are not meerly pâ—ssive as little children who have no understanding at all of Christ. But for the true meaning of Christ I need say no more but refer the Reader to Christs words Matth. 18.4 whence the meaning appears to be that no person not endued with that qualification of self-humbling of which a little child is a fit embleme Psal. 131.2 shall become an inheritour of glory Nor is there any proof made by Mr. C. of his dictate that because Christ would that little children also should be members of his Kingdome therefore hath he made it one branch of the Gospel of this Kingdome that the families of the righteous shall be blessed His reason he gives p. 51. is no reason for God might have gone further then ordinarily to cast elect children upon elect parents even to have done so universally and perpetually and yet we might no more have been sons of God by natural generation and as much by nature born children of wrath as now we are conceived Though God had not so far as Mr. C. imagines confined his choice to families kindreds and nations his elect had not been destitute of means of education sith God could have provided Catechists Preachers and others to that end in other families kindreds and naâ—ions Sure in some ages of the Church there was so little provision made to that end in families kindreds and nations that it appears that almost all the means of education was from Monasteries in Scotland and Ireland by the Histories that remain as may be seen by Seldens Epistle before the Histories collected by Twisden Ushers relation of the Irish Religion and elsewhere If it were the most natural and ready way to multiply the spiritual seed for the increase of Gods Kingdome by making believers a blessing to families and nations as Mr. C. saith p. 52. sure God by sending Apostles and not using Kings and Masters of families for that end omitted the readiest and most natural way and I see not why it should be judged the best way to propagate the Gospel to gather Churches out of Parishes and set Pastors over them or to send itinerant preachers but to reduce all Churches to family and national Churches and to make Kings and Masters of families Elders and Rulers over them Nor do I find that either God so casts the lot of his Saints together as Mr. C. imagines or that by that means the gifts of Gods people are improved and light increased but by raising up holy Teachers and Pastors and associating of the Saints from their several dwellings into a well ordered assembly If as Mr. C. saith p. 55. the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites not by common rules of righteousness among men but by special revelation and command from God then either they did it not by the promise Gen. 22.17 or that promise did not assure them of the possession of Canaan by common rules of justice as Mr. C. conceives That the people of God in the times of the N. T. may not make war against Antichrist or Babylon and their party as an Anathema but upon a natural and civil account for the just liberties opposed and invaded by them may be well doubted considering sundry passages which are Rev. 17.16 17. 18.6 24. That the dominion which the Saints shall at last obtain shall need no force either to get or maintain it but it shall naturally fall upon them as from other causes so also by reason of theâ—r number according to the law of nature and common rules of righteousness is not proved from Isa. 2.3 and how much it may tend to denying the lawfulness of Christians fighting in wars especially if the chief or onely cause be to preserve the Godly from oppressions in Religion is to be considâ—red And that power is naturally devolved upon the Saints because of their numbers as p. 60. is intimated seems to me an unsafe speech as resting on this position That power is naturally devolved on the greatest number It is enough that I have onely by the way noted these things that what men preach and print may be better considered I pass on to the examining of Mr. Cs. application SECT LXXIX Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers THe first thing Mr. C. observes is that in the promise to Abraham there 's an addition made to the former promise to Adam Gen. 3.15 which I grant but not such an addition as Mr. C. conceivs The next is that to this promise of making believers blessings to families and nations God made an addition of the seal of Circumcision and the application of this seal to infants is part of the seâ—l thereby signifying and confirming that promise of such blessing So Gen. 17.10 14. Had not the application of it to the infant been part of the token of the Covenant the childs
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ— Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whâ—n I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâ—ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which â—ate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inâ—â—pid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism â—is most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâ—e a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châ—ef article was that they should shake off every yoâ—e and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâ—e playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâ—h That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied
both the partaking and also the knowledge of the Gospel It is true Muncer was a busie man in Thuringia and stirred up the people disposed to tumults by reason of oppressions and at Munster in Westphalia in the years 1532 1533. were stirs and out-rages but even Spanheimius himself sets down the beginning of them to have been upon the Protestant reformation by the preaching of Rotmannus and others afore the comming of John Matthias and John Becold of Leyden the Bishop and Canons of Munster being Papists opposing it How in like manner the Bishop of Geneva was expelled when the Protestants grew potent there and the like was done in other places is manifest by records extant which acts have been represâ—nâ—ed as alike odious with those of Muncer and at Munster and would h ave been so reputed if there had been the like success I mean the adverse party had prevailed as they did in these Our present distractions cannot with any shew of truth be said to take their spring from Anabapâ—ism by any that know things from the relation of men imâ—loyed in publike negotiations their being neither in the beginning nor now either in the Councel of State or Parliaments or Armies or City of London or Universities or Countries any such persons or parties as could swâ—y things any further then to put some stop to the violence of the Clergy against them to which as the cause of them though not the onely the present distractions are to be referred to whom how much in former ages and at this present the great troubles of the Churches of God are to be ascribed may be seen in part in Mr. Baxters Book intituled The Reformed Pastour ch 4. sect 1 2. and in many histories Mr. Cr. adds which reason with experience dictates for by their principles whole nations are unchurched and none received into communion but by re-baptizing all former members esteemed as Publicans and Heathens hence Magistracy and Ministry that dissents are by them wholly disgusted if not discarded Answ ... Experience hath not proved either the disasters in Germany or our present distractions to have sprung from Anabapâ—ism but from other causes chiefly the oppression of Princes and Prelates 2. Nor are Mr. Crs. reasons sufficient to evince Anabaptism a cause of such troubles For the first principle that whole nations are unchurched is as well the Independent as Paedobaptists principle among whom is Mr. Cradock counted a light in their Goshen of Monmouthshire by the relatour of the dispute in the Epistle dedicatory and if so the present distractions are to be ascribed with as good reason to Indepency as to Anabaptism and perhaps with greater it being considered that they have been and are the more potent party As the Papists imputed all the troubles to Protestant principles of Christian â—iberâ—y the Prelates to non conformists whom it hiâ— gift long since compared with Anabaptists because they alledged agâ—inst Prelacy Matth. 20 25 26. so the Presbyterians charge the like on Independency and perhaps Independents on Anabaptism yet none of their principles are indeed the spring of the troubles but the violence of the leading men of each party who by their mis-reports and clamors stir up Magistrates and people against their opposites and will by no means allow liberty to them nor willingly life of which spirit Mr. Cr. seems by his writing to bee and I suppose the State will discern all such as will not tolerate others who dissent in religion intolerable 2. It is false that Magistracy and Ministry that dissents is by Anabaptists wholly disgusted if not discarded For though I cannot justifie all so called there being violent spirits among them who are intolerable as well as oâ—hers yet neither do all nor any great part that I know of appear to be such But if they did yet sure it comes â—ot from those principles fore-named by Mr. Cr. there being no such consequâ—nce included in those tenents that they who are not Churchmeâ—bers are not to be accounted Magistrates As Bp. Andrews answered resp ad Bellarm Apol. c. 1 p. 30. Bellarmine alledging the Puritans did not admit the Kings Supremacy because they brought a parity into the Church To the Kings Supremacy what is parity among Elders in the Church Videt ergo lector ludere hîc paâ— impar Cardinalem so may I say to Mr Cr. The Baptists do not count whole nations to be Churches of Christ and with them agree Independents as Dr. Owen of Schism ch 7 c The Baptists receive none into communion but the baptized esteemed all other as not in the Church visible though these two last are denied by many of them what is the non-admission into the Church to the disgusting or discarding of Magistracy in the Common-wealth The Reader therefore sees Mr. Cr. to play here par impar even and odd What Mr. Cr. hath suffered for patronage of respect to tender Consciences I know not nor who are for promiscuous toleration without distinction What he adds out of the old Testamâ—â—t of Pâ—inces punishing idolatry and blasphemy was done by special judicial laws of Moses which do not binde Christian Magistrates if they did it makes nothing for the punishing of errours of Christians about the Christian doctrine by civil punishment It is granted that Ministers are bound to oppose errours by preaching and Ecclesiastical censures both singly and in Councils yet neither have Councils nor the learnedst Doctours been very happy in determining of errours and heresies That which was heresiâ— in one Council was Orthodox in another under one Emperor that was adjudged â—ruth which was blasphemy under another What strange kinds of Heretiques were the Quartodecimani Aerians Helvidians and many more Had Vigilantius or Jovinian saith Mr. Baxter in his Reformed Pastour p. â—47 had Hieromes name some of their Heresies might possibly have been articles of faith Nor was it well done however Mr. Cr. conceives that well-minded Emperours did rely so much on the advise of Synods and Bishops as to banish and destroy at the instance of them such as they judged heretiques and schismatiques The sad tragedies about the doctrines of the Trinity Images Easter c. are a sufficient document to all wise rulers to bee cautelouâ— how they use their power for suppressing persons deemed erroneous in point of doctrine There may bee toleration of different opinions in a Commonwealth without mixture of religion and that such toleration doth not dissolve the bond of obedience or breed any of those evils Mr. Cr. reckons up except by accident the peaceable rule of the united Provinces of Belgia and elsewhere shews It is the intemperate zeal of Preachers and others against dissenters which is the chief cause of such evils as Mr. Cr. reckons up I remember that I have read that the Bores of Germany were not subdued till 100000. of them were slain but Sleidan reports not in his Com. l. 7. or any other that in Germany the Anabaptist grew so populous that they could
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
here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership my answer was That in mercy to the whole catholick Church the Jewish infant Church-membership ceased and therefore the infant visible Churchmembership Jewish in mercy ceased To understand his minor it is to be observed that Mr. B. asserts 1. a law or ordinance of infants visible Church-membership antecedent to that of Circumcision 2. That this is by promise and precept 3. That this infant visible Churchmembership essentially contains a right to Gods soveraignty Christs headship favour protection provision and other blessings due from such a Soveraign and head to his members 4. That this belonged not onely to the infants of the Jewish nation but also of believers in all ages 5. That this mercy belonged to the infants of the believers of the Jewish nation when they were made Christians and so could not be in justice taken from them though the nation of the Jews were broken off for unbelief 6. That in mercy it cannot be said to be taken away without a greater mercy to the infants of believrs in stead of it 7. That the comming of Christ in the flesh the extent of the Church over the world through faith the changing of Churchmembership by birth into that by faith and so making the Church more spiritual is not a greater mercy to the infants of Jew believers in stead of that visible Church-membership 8. That without visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church catholick the infants of Jew believers are in worse case then they were in the Jewish Church national On the contrary I deny 1. such a law or ordinance 2. That the Hebrew infant visible Churchmembership was by promise and precept 3. That this visible Churchmembership contained essentially such a right as Mr. B. asserts though it was a mercy in comparison of the state of other nations yet thereto was annexed a heavy yoke of legal impositions the deliverance from which was a mercy and in this respect it was in mercy not continued to believers infants of the Jewish nation 4. That it belonged to any other infants then of the Hebrew people 5. I assert that when the Jewish nation or Hebrew people were broken off for unbelief in Christ visible Churchmembership of infants was in justice taken away from the whole people and consequently from the infants of Jew believers who were onely visible Churchmembers as a part of that nation yet in mercy to them sith their visible Churchmembership in that nation was dangerous to them yea inconsistent with Christianity the Jewish nation being a rebellious and gainsaying people as it was a mercy for Lot to be in Sodom and he was in justice to the place outed and yet in mercy to himself when it was to be destroyed 6. I assert that it might be truly said that the infant Jewish visible Churchmembership may be said to be taken away in mercy â—rom the infants of believers of that nation though no greater mercy were given to those particular infants of the same kind barely in stead of it 7. I assert that it cannot be said to be taken away in justice from infants of believing Gentiles sith it was never granted to any Gentile nation to be Gods visible Church nor were their infants visible Churchmembers except by proselytism they were incorporated into the Jewish people 8. I assert that the not taking in of believing Gentiles infants into the visible Church Christian was not an act judiciary of God as a Judge but Gods free act of soveraignty changing Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith 9. I assert that the comming of Christ in the flesh and the consequents thereof the breaking down the partition wall taking in the Gentiles by faith c. without taking in infants into the visible Church Christian were greater meâ—cies then the Jewish infant Churchmembership which was clogged with legal burdens and was an imperfect state and did abundantly countervail the Jewish infant visible Churchmembership in the best state of that and did bring as much benefit to infants as that relation did 10. That the infants of believing Gentiles no members of the visible Church Christian are not in worse but beâ—ter condition in respect of any real Evangelical blessing then the Hebrew infants were with their Churchmembership 1. Because the spiritual blessings of regeneration in dwelling of the spirit justification remission of sins adoption Gods favour protection provision eternal life are as much assured to them in infancy without visible Churchmembership as they were with it 2. They do actually enjoy sooner these mercies if in the invisible Church without which none ever enjoyed them and in more ample mâ—nner without Jewish visible Churchmembership then they did with it the spirit being now more powred out the Gâ—spel cleared the Châ—rch enlâ—rged onely legal ceremonies and rest in Canaan witâ— prosperity therein being taken away Mr. B. and the reader hereby may fully understand what I deny and what I grant and how I answer this his petty reasoning without yeelding the cause and when he hath refuted these assâ—rtions leâ— him sing his triumph and not as he vainly and insolently doth afore the victory He adds But yet let us follow it further And 1. what means Mr. T. to talk of mercy to others when our question is Whether it be a mercy to themselves to be unchurched 2. â—y this arguing be may prove any thing almost in the world a mercy For all shall work together for good to them that love God Rom. 8.28 And therefore if I should ask him whether it be in mercy to wicked men that God giveth them over to themselves and at last damneth them Mr. T. may thus answer that it is for it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church that is to other men but what is this to the damned So Mr. T. saith It is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church But what is that to infants who are unchurched Answ. 1. What I mean he may if he please discern by what is here said and in what sense infants may be said to be unchurched and how it may be a mercy to them and others 2. The damnation of themselves cannot be a mercy to wicked men when it is a benefit to the elect because it never produceth them good But the mercy to the catholick Church is a mercy to believers infants 1. in that it frees them from legal burthens 2. in that there is a near capacity and probability of the best good for them remaining in their parents or others godly families He adds And what a strange reason is that of Mr. T. to say It is a mercy because their Churchstate was carnal fleshly and agreeable to their minority but ours is spiritual What is this to them that are put out of that carnal Churchstate and kept out of this spiritual Churchstate too If they had been admitted into this better state as no doubt they are then he had said somewhat Else