of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
strength such a blessing as they had in their cattel as well as their children as Psal. 127.3 4 5. 144.12 13 14 15. and many more places is expressed And v. 9. though their Churchmembership was established according to Gods Covenant and oath yet the establishing was not the Covenant oath or promise of God but a transeunt fact of providence in preserving teaching them continuing his worship among them and such like acts And saith Mr. B. Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Answ. Not all the seed of Israel are called the holy seed but those onely who were legitimate that is begotten by lawfull marriage according to Moses law the rest were termed the mixed multitude Neh. 13.3 whom they separated from the rest Ezra 10.3 as being no Churchmembers that is part of the congregation of Israel according to the law Neh. 13.1 Deut. 23.3 7.3 Exod. 23.32 of which more is to be seen in the first Part of this Review sect 25. So that those Ezr. 9.2 are termed the holy seed not barely by Covenant upon the parents faith nor as all visible professors as Dr. Hammond in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 78. but as begotten by an â—sraelite on an allowed wife by the law of Moses Mr. B. proceeds Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant onely of the successive Israelites and then it 's not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It 's a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off v. 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Churchmembership contained in God 's being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Answ. What hath been spoken of Deut. 29. by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley and in his Book of Baptism part 1. ch 14 17. and his Corrective sect 5. will be examined in that which follows For present 1. it is sufficient to shew the impertinency of this Text to prove that there the Covenant or promise of God upon condition of parents faith is the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership in that the Covenant being then put even with the children unborn v. 15. yea and the parents then believing yet the children unborn could not be then visible Churchmembers as Mr. B. himself grants of Baptism pag. 250. They that were not could not be members visible or invisible For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the parents believing are Deut. 29. even according to Mr. B. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and parents faith are not the sole efficient 2. The Oath or Covenant of God is a distinct act from his establishing them for a people unto himself and being a God to them which are the consequent upon it and are by transeunt acts consequent upon the Covenant So that though the Covenant give a right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Churchmembers without some other transeunt fact consequent upon it The Covenant assures a future existence but suppposeth a present absence of the thing covenanted and consequently without a further act consequent on it makes not any in present being visible Church-members So that as yet I find no Text of Scripture setting down the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by Gods promise upon parents faith or dedication commanded as the sole efficient unrepealed Lâ—t's view the rest Deut. 30.19 saith he there is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josiah caused the people to enter 2 Kin. 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Answ. 1. There is a law and promise Deut. 30 19. but not such as Mr. B. asserts as the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership The life there is not visible Churchmembership but a prosperous being in Canaan v. 20. And the distinction between thou and thy seed proves that Deut. 29.12 thou notes the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel v. 10. distinct from the little ones wives strangers v. 11. though represented by them and that my speech so much exagitated by Mr. B. of Baptism p. 57 249. was justifiable 2. The Covenants 2 Chron. 15. 34.31 32. 2 Kin. 23.2 3. of Asa and Josiah were Covenants of Israel to God there 's no mention of Gods promise or Covenant to them as then made and therefore it is not that whereby infants are made visible Churchmembers according to Mr. B. and so is impertinent to the point in hand 3. The futility of Mr. Bs. argument from Levit. 25.41 54 55. is shewed in the 2d part of this Review sect 14. It follows in Mr. B. The second Commandment Exod. 20.5 6. Deut. 5.9 10. I think is a law and containeth a promise or praemiant part wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the generations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments of which I have also spoken elsewhere to which I refer you I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise and discovery of Gods resolution concerning the children of all that love him whether Jews or Gentiles to whom this Commandment belongs nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Churchmembership And that this is fetcht from the very gracious nature of God I find in his proclaiming his Name to Moses Exod. 34.6 7. Answ. If this mercy here imply Churchmembership to the infants of them that love him to a thousand generations then it implies it to all the infants in the world which cannot be true without such limitations as take away the certainty of any infants Churchmembership existent But there is nothing to prove that this mercy must be Church-membership or that it must be to all the children of them that love God and are obedient or that it must be to them in infancy sith it may be true of other mercies as preservation provision c. to some onely sith the speech is indefinite in a matter not necessary and
that command is in force to all persons in Covenant as it was then Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant is expressed by himself in the words before pag. 22.23 the command of Circumcision Gen. 17.11 12. when he saith All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision so that if he mean as his words are this is his meaning in his conclusion that command which is Gen. 17.11 1â— to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old is now in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then which neither hath nor can have any other sense taking words as they are used by other men but that still all in Covenant with God are bound by thâ— command Gen. 17.11 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abroâ—â—ted Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage which the Apostâ—e saith would make Christ unprofitable to us Gal. 5.1 2 3. But it will be said he means not the command of Circumcision but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant Ans. If he means so he rather juggles than disputes For the words speak of the command which is Gen. 17.11 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament besides that of Circumcision is either there or any where else that I know of if there be let it be shewed But this is the manner of Paedobaptists in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing as they call it with the first seal the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction with which they mock their auditors and readers who unwarily take what they say without examination Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument yet because this mans reasoning is so commended let 's view his proofes For proof of the Major thus he writes For when God giveth the reason of any command that reason is the ground of the command and till that reason ceaseth he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practice And again If the first proposition be denied viz where there is the same reason of a precept continued there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God and who can say unto him what doest thou For the Lord commands nothing without a reason if there be no reason exprest the reason of his will is implyed which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world till he makes it appear that it ceaseth This is very clear Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood either of the reason why Cod commands a thing or the reason why we are bound to observe that command The reason why God commands is various sometimes one thing sometimes another sometimes expressed sometimes concealed And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands as I said before I am the Lord your God is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. is given for the command to be obedient children not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance but to be holy in all manner of conversation is citâ—d from Levit. 11.44 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats or to touch certain things unclean by the Law And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning the reason of the precept not ceasing we are bound still to the precept Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law and from touching things legally defiling But though there may be many motives to do it the rather yet the onely formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing is the command of our Lord revealed to us besides which we are to look no further nor are we to neglect it till by some declaration of his will it appears we are discharged Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar because of Gods command without knowing any other reason yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel that he should not slay him Now then to Master Drews argument Iâ— he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false the reason why God gave a precept may continue and yet the practice is not to continue as Levit. 11 44 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach and yet the precept reach as though God brought not us out of Egypt which is the reason of the command Deut. 5.6 7. yet the command pertains to us and vers 15. It is said Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us though the reason of it do not And as for his inference That if it be denied where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God it is true if by the same reason of a precept he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept to wit the declaration of Gods will it should continue but if he understand it in the first sense for that reason which God gives why he declared his will and bound us to observe it though it continue yet the precepr may not be in force nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde though that reason cease as is proved before Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11 12. which is vers 4 5 6 7 8. is a reason of the first sort and not of the latter And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force however rhe reason God used to inforce it remaine except the institution be continued Rightly Pareus comm in Gen. 8.20 to an Objection That sacrifices are to be continued because the cause is perpetual Answereth The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing as a Cause continued with its effect makes the same perpetual But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients but onely by appointment that is divine ordination which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers and a signification of gratitude unto the coming of
Church is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision genealogies outward policy national meetings family dwelling c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds Yea say you further it will follow that there may be a vâ—sible Church which consists onely of infants of believers I answer no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church it 's possible but very imâ—roble that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behind them and it 's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites Answer It is somewhat more possible or more probable there should be onely infants left in a Church of a house town or village than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation as the Iewish Church did nor is it unlikely â—uch things hâ—ve happened in sweeping plagues And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites the sâ—me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedobâ—â—pists way in which there is of necessiâ—y so much ignorance in matters of Religion all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares But if it be possible as it is granted that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith contrary ro the definiâ—ion of a visible Church That it is a company of professors of faith and they shal be visible Church-members who neither by themselves or any for them do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense whereby Christianity is expressed The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name Matth. 18.20 But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise as hâ—th been said than the Christian. Next Mr M. against these words of mine It is also true that we are not to account infants of believers which he omits in repetition to belong to God before God which he likewise omits in repetition in respect of election from eternity omitted by him or promise of grace in Christ omitted also of present estate of in-being in Christ or future estate by any act of Science or faith without a particular relation for there is no generall declaration of God that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate excepts two things 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for Answer If that visible Church-membership he pleads for arise from the covenant of grace in Christ as hitherto hath been the plea nor can they shew any other then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it For take away the cause and â—he effect ceaseth and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown sith the cause of it appears not And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith as Mr M. holds in his Sermon pag. 47 in his Defence pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers they are not to be baptized 2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self and dare boldly affirm that by this argument no visible Church or all the visible professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. wâ—thout a paricular revelation because there is no declaration of God that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this For visible professors who are grown men the same will serve for infants of believers Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine By any act or science of faith I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men which I had said of infants But this no whit hurâ—s our Teneâ—t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith to be baptized by us and by an act of science or experience by sense we know them to be such whom we baptize Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science or faith without a particular revelation yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious sober understanding and free professors of Christianity and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples know we ought to baptize them and upon their profession out of charity which believeth all things hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 judge them by an act of opinion elect and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing but suspend our judgmenâ—t and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons against which I excepted in my Examen pag 42 4â— one was That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed Concerning which Mr M. tels me That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be that look as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as they could then and what ever inâ—onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also As for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'l
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
exhorted to be baptised who are under the same Covenant yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism witâ—out which the promise warrants not Baptism There is no such command Gen. 17.7 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumciâ—â—on and if it were yet mâ—re is needful to warrant infant baptism There is as plain precept Acts 2.38 8.36 37. Mark 16.16 Matth. 28.19 against inâ—ant Baptism as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28 Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism without arguing from the Covenant of grace which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d part of this Review sect 5 and none against the Holy Ghost but from him That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39 or elsewhere Dipping in rivers need not be onerous and may be without danger to women with child Virgins some sorts of diseased persons in winter in cold countries and it will require more strength in dispute then either Mr. Baillee or Mr. Baxter have shewed or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd to prove dipping in rivers though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers to be against the word the second third and fourth Commandements And against sprinkling or perfusion instead of Baptism there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself and since printed with a Letter to him as is for ought I know yet unanswered All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98 99. that now infants of believers are casten out for no fault of the Covenant of grace and his aggravations thereof are to be taken for meer calumnies and since the printing of my Exâ—men there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd and till he name the Anabaptists and cite the place I can take it for no other then a false accusation which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers that brought the little children Mark 10.13 14 that they were not diseased or possessed that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time â—o come to him and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones though no marks were given to parents or others whereby to discern elect children these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did Mar. 10.13 Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church What Mr. â—obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part 2. sect 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory is made good against Mr. Blake there sect 18 and not refused by me I know no absurdity in it to say Christ might bless infants of Pagans What designe Christ might have or had besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church is shewed there sect 17. against Mr. Baxter I do granâ— the blessing Mark 10.16 to be personal and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents yet it is false that we make them blessed onely as symboles of humility or that the blessing was some complemental salutation or that as Mr R. saith of Anabâ—ptists after hiâ— calumniating manner wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant and under the curse of God but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace and that many other infants are so Whether they were parents or believers in Christ as the Messiah who brought the children Matth. 19.13 is uncertain nor do I say or need I they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant nor do I deny that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews under the New Testament nor doth any thing I say infer that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings which proves a prediction that the natural seed of believers as such shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church But they are all impertinently alledged some being meant of the Jews iâ—crease in Judâ—â— after their return from Babylon some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles and most of them so far cleared before that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies and incoherencies that I shall onely animadvert on some passages till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form He tels us pag 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting as the means before the end and the cause before the effect for faith comes by hearing of a sent preâ—cher Rom. â—0 14 and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and of a new spirit Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant before they can be internally and really in covenant In which speech he seemâ— to conceive external covenanting to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher else his reason had been vain But what non-sense scribling is this to term preaching or hearing covenanting A person may and we may conceive some do preach and hear who never externally covenant Sure covenanting is promising but so is not either preaching or hearing And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true no infant can be internally and really in Covenant who doth not preach or hear His talk is as vain Of the Lord being a God simply to some and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness not to all as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness or the being a God to his people contained not the greatest blessings contrary to Lu. 20.37 38. Heb. 11.16 His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14 is without proof and all shewed to be vain in the places before cited Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants yet not so still nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part 2. sect 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant if infants be in Covenant they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant If Rom. 11.16 be meant of holiness onely intentionally and not giving actual right to Baptism then the holiness there proves not infants to
pretence we are unbaptized to which end they must coin a new baptism or else they are at a loss And their arguing with 〈◊〉 will be much like the Papists in the point of Transubstantiation which requireth that men renounce their sense and say that they see not that which they seâ— and feel not or tast not that which indeed they feel and tast and then they may come to be in the right and so we must beleeve that we see none baptized in our Churches nor hear it nor know of any such thing and then we may come to be a Church As if the arguing were that there is nothing which Paedobaptists call baptism in their Churches not there is nothing that may bee truely called Christian baptism according to Christs institution and then p. 300. after his fashion when he wants arguments he adds Oh if it were the will of God that we could have as clear light in some other weighty points as we have in Scripture for the baptism of the children of beleevers how much would it do to quiet the understandings of many that are willing to know I dare not say it is a wonder to me to finde such passages in Mr. Baxter but having examined his book of baptism his ten reasons for his practise of Infant baptism delivered in Bewdley Chappel May 4. 1656. His Letters to me 1655. set down here sect 53 c. I cannot but bemoan the sad condition first of Ministers and people who are carried away with such shallow disputings and confident speeches as Mr. Baxter hath used in these writings 2. Of my self and all who go about to cleer truth that they be necessiâ—ated to stir up such a nest of Wasps and Hornets as these have shewed themselves to be who have opposed me if thâ—y do never so brotherly and fairly and regularly declare their judgments contrary to the common received tenents Yet I must confess two things have somewhat refreshed mee against the hard censures of those whom Mr. Blake mentions and the rest the one that His Highness and Council and the Parliament since as I am informed confirming the Ordinance for approbation of publique Preachers seem to have better thoughâ—s of me in putting that trust on me thâ— other that to mention no other two of the ablest acutest and well read Divines and accurate Dispuâ—anâ—s which I have known the University of Oxford in my time to have bred and who have been thought sit for the Divinity Chair have had far other conceits of my writings then these have had the one not long after the publishing of my Examen expressing his rejoycing to see so accurate and scholastical a discussing of the point which he found not in the Assembly wishing he had known of it afore the publishing of it that he might have prefixed an Epistle yet wishing it had been written in Latin as foreseeing that the publishing it in English was likely to beget me more trouble then it would have done if printed in Latin the other who since that wrote thus to me I am a friend to your person whom I have known though not known to you this 31. years and to your opinion too as to the main of it for I beleeve and know that there is neither precept nor practise in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. The first who bears witness to Infant baptism prastised in the Church is Tertullian but so as he expresâ—â—d slikâ—s and condemnes it as an unwarrantable and irrational customâ— and Naxianzen a good while after him in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dislikes it too and would not have infants brought to baptism till they were of some age and able to answer for themselves Sure I am that in the Primitive times they were first to be Catechumini â—f then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminati or baptizati and that not onely children 〈◊〉 Pagans or Pagans converted but children of Christian parents Naâ—ianzen though a Bishops son being not baptized till he was about 30. years of age as appears in his life and the like is evident of some others· The truth is I beleeve Pâ—dobaptism did how or by whom I know not come in in the 2d Century and in the 3d. and 4th began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawfull from that text grosly misunderstood Jo. 3.5 Vpon the like gross mistake of Jo. 6.53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate infants and give them the Lords Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either But although they baptized some infants and thought it lawfull so to do yet Augustin was the first that ever said it was necessary inde durus pater infantum I have read what my learned and worthy friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of it and I confess I wonder not a little that men of such great parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an argument for it Nor is it a small case to me that I finde after all Mr. Baxters shamefull and vain arguings against the truth and injurious dealings with me and the baptized Christians with whom I hold Communion that yet at last though quite besides his intentions he hath so befriended our cause as to lend us twenty good arguments against Infant baptism in his 2d disputation of right to Sacraments in the close of the 16th saying thus p. 156. I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention onely the administration of it to the professors of saving faith and the precepts give us no other direction And I provoke Mr. Blake as far as is seemly for me to do to name one precept for baptizing any other and make it good if he can I know what he will pretend that he intended thâ—s onely against Mr. Blakes opinion of baptizing upon a dogmatical faith and he means what he argues onely in the case of adult persons But that doth not avoid his own arguments against himself though he otherwise intended nor will his evasion serve till he prove that there is a different precept or example for baptizing Infants from that of baptizing adult persons or that any are to be accounted beleevers or disciples by their parents oâ— as his term is proparents profession which will never be done by him I will not say as Mr. Blake saith some have said of me that it is not possible but he goes against the dictates of his own conscience But this I dare boldly say that Mr. Baxter hath strongly disputed against Infâ—nt Baptism in the place forenamed pag. 53. asserting and proving Arg. 1. We must not baptize any who profess not true repentance pag. 62. Arg. 2. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to belâ—eve in God â— 68. Argum. 3. It 's the very nature or appointed use of the external
than a malignant spirit towards me he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God And for what he chargeth me with that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits though my denial is enough to acquit me from it there being none but knows my actions better than my self and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes yet as I said so I repeat it it appears to be a loud calumâ—y in that all along in my Examen and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me not onely in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect 4. part 3. and the holiness of children 1 Cor. 7.14 Exam. part 3. sect 8. Exerc. sect 5. Review part 1. sect 22. but also about the institution Mat. 28.19 Review part 2. sect 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this Yea the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it to wit that Baptism is to be after the institution and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that infâ—nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church â—o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good and to be viâ—â—ble Church-members from the Lords Supper for want of knowlâ—dg as for what he tells me He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I deâ—â—â—er â—bout the Covenant and Seal though I do not yet believe it yet there is no reason therefore to reject it as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do yet this is so fâ—r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf sith Jesuits are Adversaries to me as well as others But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before Postscript Sect. 13. Mr. Blake proceeds thus Secondly if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies but civil domestical restrained to Jews and not appertaining to Christians How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion it might have made a civil distinction and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh and that their interest had not been in Canaan But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision Ephes. 2.11 12. cannot be imagined Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mahometans at this day which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob and the Samaritans as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23 were circumcised yet were not of the Jewsh Religion or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22 Noâ— every one that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship and moral Law of the Jews though they were not circumcised as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4 nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11 12. determine upon their uncircumcision that is conclude them without hope without God barely from their uncircumcision as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope without God but he onely sets those things down as concurrent not one the certain cause or sign of the other 2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion not because it sealed Gospel-mercies nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestick benefits but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises either Evangelical or civil and domestick 3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet who hold it signed the spiritual promises though not them onely as wel as by Mr. Blakes The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Deut. 10.16 Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 44.9 is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual which is not denied nor any thing against the mixture I hold in the covenant nor to evacuate any inference I make from it In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews which I grant But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination Fifthly saith he How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational civil or domestick but onely to that which is purely spiritual speaking of Abraham he saith he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical Rom. 3.22 3.30 10.3 Phil. 3.8 and this Circumcision sealed the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal Answer The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 12. For 1. that which is to be defined is say Logicians a common term but Circumcision Rom. 4.11 is not a common term but a singular or individual to wit that which Abraham had in his own person it is that which he received and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith which he had yet being uncircumcised for a singular privilege to be the father of believers Ergo 2. There is no genus nor difference of Circumcision from other things therefore no definition No genus for the term seal cannot be the genus it being a meer Metaphor and so
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
promiseth the continuance of it Right being a moral or civil thing can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action A gift that was never given is a contradiction So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right but a state of being as to be healthy strong rich c. which are not given by a civil moral action but by providence of God acting physically as the soveraign disposer of all It is certain that it is by Gods will as all things are but this will is no otherways signified then by the event as conversion and many other gifts of God are My meaning is though these things are by vertue of Gods will and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts which may bâ— called his Covenant yet in the particulars I mean for the persons time c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it upon that condition Mr. B. asserts that is the parents faith as I have proved before Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon â—he parents faith And to Mr. Bs. argument I say that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation or grant yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise such as Mr. B. asserts follows not it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species it must be by Gods gift or grant ergo bâ— promise Yea according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onely a future right and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it but some other act of God and consequently there is another possâ—ble yea manifest way without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith which Mr. B. asserts But Mr. B. saith 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it Answ. These aâ—e but words as will appear by that which followes The 2d Proposition saith Mr. B. to be proved is that there was a law or precept of God obâ—iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum maâ—estatis obliganâ— aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam But this leaves out the praemiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a two-fold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the praemiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be mulâ—iplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will onely call that a law which is witten or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a law and justly rejected by the wisest politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law onely to him that hath them Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms and he onely and that unnecessarily and tediously explains one term to wit law which was not the term in my Letter to which his Proposition was to be opposed but the word precept whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership and what offer he meant they were to accept and how and how they were to engage them to God and how this entring accepting re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Church-membership to their children and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down that I might have known his meaning and thereby have known whether his assertion
what regard is the new frame betterâ—d by casting out infants which were in the old Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onely believers the Church is more spiritual Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save onely that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full exâ—ress faith Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult it being hard to determine what Articlâ—s were necessary to salvation which is a question so hard that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onely say that I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch 27. I finde idolaters blasphemers and some others adjudged to death yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws that idolaters and such great sinners were cast out of the Church but were members of it The later is answered before often enough Mr. B. tels me You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well that I expected I should have questions enow though I desired onely a few Texts it s his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted and serve to weary the reader and respondent and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist though without cause But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words when I desired onely a line or two about his texts and how ill he deals with me and the reader who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Church-membership the denial of which he makes so hainous and from which he argues so much I leave to the considerable Reader to judge But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me after all my work in answering him I must be corrected ere I be dismissed SECT LXIII Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions and Conclusion of his Letter are answered ANd now saith he I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Q. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that infants were visible Churchmembers not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae though I pitty him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not or will not understand presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones But to his question I answer negatively and return it back to him is it not an undertaking palpably absurd to make visible Churchmembership to be a right to a benefit by Gods promise as the sole efficient and anothers faith as the condition But saith he either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant making or not if you do what a saying is it that infants were made Churchmembers not by Covenant but by a Covenant making not by a Law but by a Law making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Churchmembership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to bee devoted to God Which ever of these wayes you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent juâ—ge Answ. That I need chuse none of the wayes hee mentions nor change my opinion is amply shewed Sect. 55. this high charge would have been leâ—t out had he more sobriety and humility I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible and go on Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transâ—unt fact is that without law or Covenant makes Churchmembers I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now ner ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of dâ—stempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Answ Ne saevi magne sacerdos The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts but the plain word of God Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.37 from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant as the institution of Christ and practise of the Apostles which they follow without Schism endeavouring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God If any Schism have been a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth as if it were a damnable errour accursed of God and his followers violent opposition of which Bewdley hath had sad experience of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith and breaking bread together though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism pag. 342. that it should be so And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others
is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews They are put out of the carnal Churchstate too But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership by faith and as a mercy to the catholick Church For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances which infants are partakers of in actual possession and capable of the spirit though they be not actually visible churchmembers and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual church-state And Mr. B. doth much mistake as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church yet none of them were given of it in Christs time they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peoâ—le a generation of vipers denied the holy one and the just and desired a murtherer made the temple a den of theeves c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs As for the Jews who believed not they were justly put out of Gods favour their temple was destroyed and they cast out of their land for denying Christ Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually for they adhere to it unto this day and it is their curse 4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18 where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh in contradistinctâ—on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 From Rom. 2.28 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly of Circumcision which is outward in the flesh from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter From Gal. 4.25 26 23 29. where Hierusalem that then was is contradistingued to Hierusalem above and the former is in bondage with her children the later free the children of the former born after the flesh the later after the spirit From Gal. 3.3 where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh From Ephes. 2.11 where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands From Philip. 3.3 4 5. where Hebrew discent and churchmembership thereby are termed the flesh From Heb. 9.10 where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof But he further demands Or what doth he mean by churchstate whether the essential nature of the Church it self or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it Is not this word churchstate like his former of church call devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities and signifying what pleaseth the speaker Answ. Neither the term Church state nor Church call were devised by me but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines I have shewed the use of the later before and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it and that according to Mr. B. himself And for the former me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher intituled De visibilis Ecclesiae successient statu And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it and if it signifie what pleases the speaker it is so much the better for that is the use of words and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities if it signifie for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light and not darken with ambiguities So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation that his later words cross his former And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying numerous or small rich in knowledge or poor carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith more or less of the spirit the promises ministery rites c. it hath Which term state comprehends innumerable terms such as are rich and poor noble or ignoble fat or lean and many more which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality relation or passion or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions which he must not expect I will answer as I have done after this bout 5. Saith he And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause when themselves give us but their magisteâ—ial dictates But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream What are infants such â—â—ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out Are not the aged worse then they And were we not once all infants Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church and so need not prove it nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer but for Mr. B. to disprove it Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down not without some proof from Scripture and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions and vain exclamations which I resolve to neglect And of the former sort are the questions here which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members because they are Toads Vipers worse then the aged whereas I onely say that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers and no otherwise was in mercy to the catholick Church Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
formerly in that people So that Mr. Bl. hitherto hath mâ—de no answer to my arguments but talkâ—d at randome quite besides the matter urged in them My 5th argument was If the breaking off the Jews were by blinding then the ingraffing was by giving faith but the former is true v. 25. Ergo the later To this Mr. S. saith There is not the sâ—me reason seeing â—e takes iâ— of giving saving faith their blinding was judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel the giving of faith is not on such terms neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding to Gods final rejection Answ. He saiâ—h there is not the same reason but shews not why if the breaking off be by blinding the ingraffing should not be by giving a saving faith Sure according to all the Logick I ever learned it is as clear an aâ—gument as can be in this case that where opposite effects are put the one effect being from one cause the other should be from the opposite cause T is true I take the inlightning opposite to blinding to be the giving saving faith yet do not think the blinding v. 25. to have bin judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel but as it is v. 32. the vety shutting up in unbelief the antecedent to unbelief consequent on reprobation opposite to election as v. 7 8 9 10. do plainly shew not consequent to unbelief What he means by the giving of faith is not on such terms I cannot readily divine the speech seems to me to be either non-sense there being no terms forementioned that I can perceive to which it may be referred or else it is impertinent to the answering the objection and so as that which follows For though the giving of saving faith be not on such terms as Mr. S. means or that it be not so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection doth it follow that if the breaking off be by blinding v. 25. the ingraffing is not by giving faith v. 24 But Mr. S. adds 2. Blindness came but in part on Israel it fell onely on the meer visible members not the invisible and elect therefore the ingraffiâ—g must be onely of visible members into the visible Church v. 7. The election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded Answ. There is no shew of consequence that I know in it that if blindness fall not on the elect therefore ingraffing is not of the elect onely the argument is plain on the contrary even from vers 7. alledged by him the rest to wit the non-elect were blinded therefore the ingraffed who obtained were onely the elect and their obtaining the ingraffing was by such enlightening as wrought saving faith in them Mr. Bl grants the conclusion that the ingraffing is by giving faith but a faith of profession into a Churchstate as he answered to the 3 d. arg To which I reply 1. If it were giving of such a faith yet infants would be excluded sith they are not so ingraffed 2. The ingraffing notes more then admission by an outward ordinance 3. I proved from the Text v. 7 8 10. that the blinding was of those who are not elect and therefore the inlightening by which the election obtains or the Gentiles are ingraffed is that as Dr. Ames saith Antisynod animadv in art 1. c. 16. whereby they obtain faith and salvation from election And I used these words If the blinding be the effect of reprobation and the breaking off be by blinding then the ingraffing is by inliâ—htening and that inlightening is according to election and so is all one with giving of faith by which I mean justifying or saving faith At this passage Mr. Bl. lays about him thus Here is Divinity which calls for patience in a degree above all that is Christian which one of the Contraremonstants worthy the name of an adversary of the Arminians hath taught this Doctrine It is that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them but that which they unanimously do disclaim I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin but never that it was the cause and that sin is a consequent of it but never an effect Reprobation is the act of God and in case it be the cause of blindness then God is the cause So that the Contraremonstranâ—s have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them that none of their adversaries though they have turned every stone to it could never prove by them Answ. 1. I did onely use this expression if the blinding be the effect of reprobation which causeth all this insulting which doth not positively assert it onely Mr. Bl. gathers it from the assumption which he supposeth I would have put which is not very candid dealing 2. The assumption he sets down thus then his assumption can be no other but that blindness is the effect of reprobation But herein he doth grosly abuse me For I did not say if blindness be the effect of reprobation but if blinding be the effect of reprobation between which there is a great difference For blindness is mans sin but blinding is Gods act ascribed to God v. 8. when it is said God hath given them a spirit of slumber eys that they should not see And Job 12.40 He hath blinded their eys and hardened their heart And this act being no other then the certain permission of sin is commonly made by Protestants an effect and means executing the decree of reprobation which is no other then blinding Potav synt l. 4. c. 10. Reprobation is effectus est permissio lapsus Ames med Theol. l. 1. c. 25. § Tertius reprobationis actus est intentio dirigendi media illa quibus justitia possit in reprobas manifestari Media hujus generis maxime propria sunt permissio peccati derelictio in peccato Rom. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2.11 12. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. § 1. unde from Rom. 9.18 sequitur absconditum Dei consilium obdu ationis esse causam Yea § 4. he saith Cujus rei defectionis Angelorum causa non potest alia adduci quam reprobatio quae in arcano Dei consilio abscondita est Vide Andr. Rivet sum contro trâ—ct 4. q. 6 7. And Piscat observ 9. e Rom. 9.10 11 12 13. Erram igitur qui putant praedestinationem pendere a praevisis operibus vel a praevisa fide vel incredulitate Imo haec omnia praedestinationis effecta sunt quomodo igitur possunt statui praedestinationis causae So that if I had taught as Mr. Bl. misreports me that Gods reprobation causeth blindness yet I had Authours worthy the name of adversaries to the Arminians so saying Nor have I done any such high dis service to the anti-Arminians as in the Table at the â—nd of his Book he chargeth me with
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
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
to be delivered by the Apostle Col. 2.17 and by the general consent of Divines Much more vain is that which he adds So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18 Gen. 12.2 3. be rejected is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant nor do the words Gen. 17.14 import that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant but the breaking the Covenant was onely meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us unless by consequence much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19 and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review sect 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with Mr. C. adds That Abraham was called father of believers 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed which he proves from Rom. 4.18 Gen. 15.5 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 From which place we may observe 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness which he had before he was circumcised he therefore became the Father of all that believe whether circumcised or not Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers his receiving it at this or that time whether before or after his believing to righteousness had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise Gen. 15.5 and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision was the reason of his title of Father of believers And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised But 1. I deny That the promise was Gen. 15.5 as Mr. Cs. additional promise is that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents but that Abraham though then childless should have innumerable children by natural generation though he were and his wife aged and more by believing as he did 2. The Scripture doth not say that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5 but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had Gen. 15.6 it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future but of a benefit obtained many years before 3 I find not any ones Circumcision but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith nor to any but him that believes as he did 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise or that the application to infants was part of the seal or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also Mr. C. adds That it was not Abrahams faith onely nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him 2. There was something given which believers had not at least in such a way had not before in reference to which he was so called therefore it was not for his faith onely nor the eminency thereof 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof that could occasion that his name to be given to him but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased And believers are said to be his seed because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another Answ. The title Father of believers is a relative with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith and Gods declaration of his justification by it which the Apostle doth plainly intimate Rom. 4.11 by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase walking in the steps of his faith The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5 not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers and so the promise was the occasion and in some sort the cause of the title as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came the righteousness of faith and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it Gen. 17.4 5 But Circumcision did not make him such he was such afore Circumcision was instituted Gen. 17.4 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11 that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of
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
of the term sanâ—tified any where else and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument is shewed fully before 2. But were it yeelded him 1. it would shew that thâ— alledging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications to expound 1 Cor. 7.14 by was impertinent the Jews sanctifications being not bâ— perswasion of another but of themselves according to Gods appointment nor do they note first bringing to the faith and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy 1 Cor. 7.14 can be conceived to be allusive â—o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. sith in 〈…〉 high Priest washed himself and but his hands and his feet 〈…〉 but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another by immâ—â—â—sion of the whole body and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in â—â—â—bable 2. If sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 be to be 〈◊〉 brought to the faith and so to Baptism holy is in like sort so be expounded and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of holy 1 Cor. 7 14. witâ—out any detriment to our cause it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith and so to baptism Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conjeâ—ture founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanâ—tifications for partial not total â—ashingâ— 1. I answer that I mention it onely as a conâ—ecture with a perhaps and lay no more weight uâ—on it 2. That for Christian baptism I no wheâ—e affiâ—m that it was onely by immersion nor on the other side that it was alwayâ— by spâ—â—â—kling but disjunâ—tively either by one or the other as by the wordâ— cited by him from prac cat l. 6 â—ect 2 is clear supposing indeed that Christs appointment was not terminated to either and so satisfied by either Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture shewed his willingness to have maintained by some colour the abuse of sprinkling in stead of baptism which his own words cited by me made me fâ—ar hee did against his own light and the contrary is not cleered by this slight excuse 2. The Drs. own words alledged by me plainly shewed that he knew the primitive baptisms were alwayes immersions of the whole body nor was any other use of water for baptism till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began Nor do his words practic cat l. 6. sect 2. cleer the contrary to be conceived by him For when he saith By Christs appointment whosoever should bee thus received into his family should he received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times and then aâ—ds or instead of that to bee sprinkled with it though he make Christs appointment disjunctively the one or the other yet he makes the primitive ancient custome onely to bee by putting under water as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custome a Rom. 6.3 4. Col 2.12 shew and the known saâ—ing of Tertullian â—er meâ—gitamur And of any one Dr. Hammond should acknowledgâ— it who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism and saith the Jewish solemnity of Baptism which he would have the original and paâ—tern of our Baptism to be the washing of the whole body As for his propounding Christs appointmenâ— disjunctively it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by maâ—ing that appointment which is but one way disjunctive either that waâ— wâ—ich is acknowledged to be Christs or another way in stead of it whicâ— cannot be shewn to have been practised by the Apostles or any Apostolical men in the primitive times And in this thing it is necessary that â—he â—â—il dealing of Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and othâ—rs be shewed who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptismâ— when Christ hâ—th appointed onelâ— dipping they add sprinkling when Christ appoints onely Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized they add infants who are not such and by a fictitious title maâ—e them Disciples by their parents faith who learn and profesâ— nothing themselves which he that readâ— considerately Mr. Baxters arguments in his 2â— disputation of the right to Sacraments may see sufficiently refuted and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscieâ—ce for what hee had written in his Book of Baptism and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian but professors of faith they add infants of their own head â—nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practise of Baptism plainly express both so as that they confess them to bee onely meant of the aged yet would have them to include also infants contrary to the plâ—in words and their own confessions and in their expositions so expound the texts as expressing onely what agrees to the aged and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another How ever it be with them sure I am no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping nor with infant Baptism when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d disput that there is a necessiâ—y of profession of repentance and faith before and none are to bee baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and though he supposeth believers children Disciples and the parents profession to be instead of their own yet no where proves it nor offers any proof but what is meerly conjectural nor can any Pastours or teachers of Churches without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Churchmembers infants whom neither Christ nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such But I return to the Dr. My last reason saith he is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness contrary to those their sanctifications viz. removing men from the congregation agreeable to which it is that those should bee called holy who in the account of God stood so that they might be received into the Church To this he answers that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the childrens beiâ—g excluded or included in the Church asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man But to this I reply that that which is so manifest needed no further proof for what two things can be more proportionable or answerable the one to the other then the Jews calling those unclean and holy who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle and the Christians calling them unclean and holy