the seal of baptism was not administrable in or by or to that Church of the Jewes Ans. The true reason why we conceive Peter required repentance of the adult Jewes to baptism is because Christ appointed none to be baptized but his disciples such as did repent believe in him as the Messiah Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 and so Peter here and Philip Acts 8.36 37. understood Christs minde The other reasons that the Jewish Church was no true visible Evangelical Church and that the seal of baptism was not administrable in or by oâ— to that Church of the Jewes I know not who assignes them as the cause why Peter required of adult Jewes repentance to baptism so that if Master Cobbet did make void these reasons and not the genuine reason assigned by us his answer is insufficient to the argument However I shall examine what he saith sith his writing hath been crackt of as unanswerable 1. By removing the first reason he intimates that the objectour conceived it necessary that a person to be baptized be a member of a true visible Evangelical Church and this he denies not yea he seems to conceive that it is needfull he be a member of such a particular Church visible in respect of outward order and government by Elders and People united in covenant But this I conceive not true 1. Because no more is needfull then is required in the institution But in the institution to be a disciple of Christ a penitent believer on him is required and no more Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 not to be a member of a particular visible Evangelical Church Ergo. 2. No more is needfull to baptism then what Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.36 37. Peter of Cornelius Acts 10.46 47. Acts 11.17 18. Paul of the Jaylour and others Acts 16.32 But they required no more but to be a Disciple of Christ or a penitent believer Ergo. 3. If it were requisite to be a member of a particular Church Cornelius was not rightly baptized but this is not true Ergo. The consequence of the major is proved because Cornelius afore his baptism was not a member of any particular Church not of the Jewish for he was uncircumcised and counted unclean by them Acts 11.3 not of the Christian For they excepted against Peter for going in to him Acts 11.2 4. Regularly a man is not a member of a particular Church till he is baptized baptism going before joyning to the Church Acts 2.41 47. therefore it is not necessary a person be a member of a particular visible Church afore baptism 2. Master Cobbet takes on him to prove that the Church of which the adult Jewes Acts 2.37 were members was a true Evangelical Church 1. Because so in the time of Christs incornation But this followeth not it might be so at Christs incarnation and yet not be so at the time of Peters speech Acts 2.38 39. they having expresly denyed Christ. 2. Because he lived and dyed a member of that Church and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal To which I say 1. Christ lived dyed the head of the Evangelical church of Jewes and Gentiles but not as a subordinate member in it though he were subject to the law of Moses and did yield obedience to it while it was his Fathers will it should stand in force 2. But that he died as a member of the Jewish church to wit that party of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were a part is not true he being an out-cast from them and made a curse for us 3. If it should be granted he were a member of that church he had been a member not of an Evangelical church but legal or rather manifestly Antichristian 2. by removing the second reason of Peters requiring repentance afore baptism of the adult Jewes he intimates that this objectour conceived it necessary that baptism be administred in or by or to a church such as the Jewes was not and he grants the former and denies the latter But how or whence it is deduced that baptism must be administrable in or by or to a church I understand not Baptism hath been and may be lawfully administred without the presence of any church as in the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip Acts 8.38 to a person who is member of no particular church as in Cornelius his baptism and by a Minister without consent of any Church as in the same cases and to a single person though no church were baptized as in the Eunuchs case Then he asserts the seal of baptism administrable in or by or to the church of the Jewes that he may maintain a title to baptism though suspended by reason of their sin in the Jewes from an imagined covenant-right and Church-membership antecedent to their repentance which are wild fancies But let us view what he writes For it 's evident saith Master Cobbet that the commission of baptism was first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein the same God that told him who should baptize with the Holy Ghost he sent him to baptize John 1.33 the Pharisees themselves could not deny Johns baptism to be from heavens authority Mat. 21.25 26. and baptism being a Church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation or administred onely in and by a church of Christ that baptism was at that time the Jewish Church-ordinance so far forth there was no other floor wherein all sorts which John baptized whether they proved chaffy hypocrites or solid grain upright ones were in his and Christs time interessed Matth. 3.11 12. this was then the onely floor or visible church of Christ for in the invisible church is no chaffe his floor he shall purge his floor Ans. It is granted John was sent by God to baptize and that the people or church of the Jewes were Christs floor and that in that floor or people were chaffe and wheat bad and good reprobate and elect ones But this proves not the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein For what consequence is there in this God sent John to the Jewes he had his authority to baptize those of the Jewes who repented therefore he sealed their membership in the church of the Jewes and baptism was administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes It seems to me that the contrary followes John was sent â—o baptize he preacheth repentance tells them that it availed not them to say Abraham was their father gathers them into a distinct School or society from the Pharisees and Lawyers Luke 7.29 30. directs them to Christ who should sever chaffe and wheat therefore he was not given by God in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but severed a people from them by repentance and
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
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
of a City or of a family and why not of a Church If I say children are members of this Kingdome or to please you Commonwealth or if I say children are members of every City in the land and of every family where they are this is all true and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it And why not when I say that infants are members of the Church But if you will not understand there is no remedy Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is hath appeared before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible churchmembers not because of the difficulty of the thing but because Mr. B. had a language as I then imagined and now find of his own of a mediate Disciple and a visible Churchmember by anothers faith without any note in their persons whereby they are discernable sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me that anothers faith could be a form oâ— note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do I shall not trouble him to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking of the brest nor being brought up in a godly family but shall passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdome into Commonwealth confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdomes and Cities Till then I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible churchmembership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor 1. from Mal. 2.15 where he would have a seed of God to be visible churchmembers But 1. he no where shews this to be the sense 2. this is not the sense For here the proper end of marriage is expressed which is common to believers and infidels But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be churchmembers visible or invisible neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it but to propagate a legitimate posterity who are called a seed of God because according to his institution But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review sect 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here in the 17th section 2. Because infants in Abrahams family were churchmembers before Circumcision Which I grant after the time of Abrahams call and Gods separating his house to be his people and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abrahams call Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument and deny the consequence of the major Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants churchmembers I grant it yet it made them visible churchmembers though not of it self alone yet with other signs So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh churchmembers how far it is true is shewed above at large and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant as he saith how is it a seal as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself as somewhat more then a bare sign 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh churchmembers but which promised Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of then the Covenant which maketh churchmembers which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ it follows 1. That the Covenant Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace 2 That it promised extraordinary priviledges to Abraham 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants but peculiar to Abraham and his seed which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses 4. Neither doth the Apostle say Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision nor doth it follow if he did that churchmembership then went before it 5. It may be and by learned men is questioned whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of Gods Covenant Gen. 17.14 and if they were it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant but a breaking of Gods command in that Covenant and their cuâ—ting off from Gods people might be by preventing from being Gods people as well as by making them not his people who were 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate that Abrahams family was then first made a Church yet in calling that Church the Circumcision it intimates that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be Gods people And if the Scripâ—ure do not intimate that then infants were first admitted members as Mr. B. saith here it will concern him to shew where the Scripture intimates their admission before and how I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words p. 24. and elsewhere that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly the concealing of which in the Disâ—ute and since hath occasioned the misleading of many and a great part of my trouble 3. Mr. B. argues thus That infants were churchmembers before Circumcision I prove most likely thus If God had before the same tender love to the faithfull and their seed as he had after and there be no mention in Scripture when the churchmembership of infants did begin since the first infants then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off because Gods love to the faithfull and their seed was as great before as after But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent He that will prove a beginning of infants churchmembership since the first infants let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it and I will believe him which I never exâ—ect to be done Answ. 1. This reason if it were good might as well prove the invisible
change the term well grounded hope in his first syllogism into a sure ground of hope For there may bee a well grounded hope of many things as that God will deliver from death in a battle provide in a siege bread c. though there bee no sure ground of hope cui fâ—lsâ—m subesse non potest that God will do these things 2. Wee have sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of some out of the visible Church though not of all infants of believers And this wee have from Gods declaration of the election of some not visible churchmembers and consequently of their salvation as Isaac and Jacob. Rom. 9.9 10 11 12 13. which is urged by Mr. B. himself pag. 78. 3. Saith he Again if there be no promise in Gods word for the salvation of any without the visible Church then there is no ground of our Christian hope that they shall be saved But there is no such promise as I think they will confess Therefore there is no ground for any such hope That Christian hope must rest upon a word of promise mee thinks should not bee denied It is plain Rom. 15.4 13. Ephes. 1.18 4.4 Col. 1.5 23 27. 2 Thes. 2.16 1 Tim. 1.1 Heb. 6.18 19. Heb. 7.19 1 Pet. 1.3 21. 3.15 Rom. 4.18 5.2 Tit. 1.1 2. Heb 11.1 c. Ps. 119.43 74 147 c. In natural things wee may have a common natural hope upon natural grounds But in supernatural things as are justification and salvation we must have the ground of a Divine revelation to support all true Christian theological hope Answ. 1. I deny the consequence of the major and to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer 1. There is not one of all the texts that saith there is no ground of true Christian hope but a promise in Gods word though there are that prove the promise of God to bee a ground of Christian hope It would bee too tedious to shew the impertinency of each of them it is sufficient to acquaint the Reader wherein the defect of proof is 2. Wee may have the ground of a Divine revelation to support our hope as of what God hath done of his attributes and other declarations although we have not a promise which Mr. B. seems too unskilfully to confound with a Divine revelation which may bee the ground of Christian hope 2. The minor is not confessed by me to Isaac and Jacob God promised salvation afore they were born therefore to them without the visible Church the like to the Gentiles to the Jews Rom. 11.26 afore they are called or in being to all the elect there is a Covenant or promise in Christ of salvation whether they be of the visible Church or not 4. Saith he Again if God do add to the Church such as shall bee saved then we can have no true ground of Christian hope of the salvation of any that are not added to the Church But that God doth add to the Church such as shall be saved is the plain words of Scripture Acts 2. last Therefore we have no true ground of such hope of the salvation of those that are not so added to it If any say that the text speaks of the invisible Church I answer 1. Then it would hold of the visible much more for the visible Church is far larger then the invisible and contain the inviâ—â—ble in it 2. But the Text expresly speaks of the visible Church For it was such a Church 1. As were baptised 2. And as the 3000. souls were in one day added to 3. And as continued in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread and prayers 4. And were together and had all things common 5. And sold their possessions and goods and parted them to them that needed 6. And continued daily in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house did eat with gladness c. 7. And as did praise God and had favour with all the people And doubtless this was the visible Church to this such as should bee saved were added yet not onely such for many false teachers and others did after go out from them and such as Simon Magus were baptised and false brethren was one cause of their sufferings So that I doubt not but it is clear that they that deny any infants to be members of the visible Church do leave us no true ground for any Christian hope of their salvation Answ. The consequence of the major is denied and the reason of the denial is because the speech is not simply convertible hee added to the Church such as should bee saved therefore all that shall bee saved are added to the visible Church Yea Mr. B. by confessing that they were not onely the saved that were added to the Church acknowledgeth the proposition to bee particular some were added to the Church which should bee saved and this is convertible onely thus Ergo some that shall bee saved were added to the Church not universal all that were added to the Church should bee saved So that wee need not betake our selves to the answer of understanding it of the invisible Church Nor is there a necessity to understand it of eternal salvation For the word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense may bee translated the saved that is as v. 40. by relinquishing of that crooked or perverse generation and if Beza's conjecture hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reading is to be and some hee daily added to the Church to bee saved Let the reading bee either way it proves not that there are none to bee saved who are not added to the Church visible And indeed such a proposition were false sith it is otherwise in the case of infants dying in the womb still born c. Mr. Bs. inference if Acts 2.47 bee meant of the Church invisible then the speech they that are to be saved are added to the Church holds much more of the visible is vain And the reason is as vain For it is uncertain whether the visible Church be far larger then the invisible considering the number of dying infants and the uncertainty how far their election and salvation extends and though there bee many of the visible Church who are not of the invisible yet the visible doth not contain the invisible in it there being many of the invisible Church who are not in the visible and therefore it proves not that if they that are saved are of the invisible then they are much more of the visible So that however it bee that Mr. B. doubt not of the contrary I am assured that the denying infants visible Churchmembership leaves sufficient ground for Christian hope of their salvation Next saith hee let us consider how far their own arguments will exclude all hope of the salvation of any infanâ— If it were true which Mr. T. so much standeth on That the onely way now appointed by Christ to make Churchmembers
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
of promise barely as made by God but as it was fulfilled and preached is Christ said to sanctifie or clense his Church And by this all said to be purified Ephes. 5.26 are clensed and therefore no infants who are not at all capable of understanding it and therefore not so capable of being clensed by it as the blind and deaf Mr. B. yet adds Object But it is the invisible Church that Christ is said thus to clense Answ. 1. Certainly those that are washed with water or hearing the word or either are all visible members 2. The visible Church hath the outward priviledges and titles of the invisible because as to us they must in prohability be judged to belong to both Therefore Paul freqâ—ently calls them all saints and sons of God by faith c. Ref. Though they be of the visible who are so washed yet the Church Ephes. 5.25 26 27. cannot be meant of the meerly visible but onely of them who are so of the visible that they are also of the invisible as is proved before from the things said of the Church which agree to none other And thus Mr. B. hath my answer to that Ch. and my apprehension of his major let 's now view his minor and try his Achilles which he is so confident of SECT L. The fifth Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture proof c. Part. 1. is examiand the texts Gal. 4.1 c. Matth. 28.19 cleered so as to prove infants now no visible Church-members CH. 5. he begins thus Though I have many and clear aâ—guments from the new Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church as I shall let you see God willing when I come to them yet because I think it most orderly to take them before us from the beginning I wiâ—l first fetch one from the old Testament and that such as is fully confirmed from the new For I hope you are none of those who have wiped out all the old Testament from your Bibles or that presently look upon a text as no text if you hear it come from the old Testament Answ. I Know none at Bewdley so erroneous or foolish But Mr. B. may see if his high soaring meditations and studies will allow him time to descend to view such a low argument as hee oft disdainfully speaks something written in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 2 3. which tends to prove that no good argument can be drawn from the old Testament for his admission of infants visible Church members And for his many and clear arguments from the New Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church he did wisely put in the caution God willing when I come to them I shall let you see them to save his credit though he never shew them For my part I despair of ever seeing them As for those I have found brought by him the chief have been examined in the first and second Part of this Review and found impertinent The dispute that remains to be viewed is so immethodical that had Mr. B. ever been bred up in Schools I am confident he would have been ashamed of it But I must now follow him in his own track I therefore saith he argue thus First If by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church then some infants are to be so admitted still But by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church therefore they are so to be admitted still Answ. Mr. B. pag. 24. plainly saith that by admitting he means solemn admitting that since baptism was instituted or established we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way that as a souldier before listing and as a King before crowning and taking his oath so are we and infants Church-members before baptism He saith pag. 26. of this argument I will first fetch you one from the Old Testament Whence 1. it is apparent that his visible Church membership and admitting visible Church-members are not the same 2. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of visible Church-membership is not aâ—l one with the merciful gift and appointment of God of admission of visible Church-members 3. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting visible Church-members is by some solemn rite Which is confirmed in that he speaks of admitting visible Church-members as a duty to be performed by some persons as when he saith ch 4. ought to be admitted visible Church members and in this place were once to be admitted visible Church-members Visible Church-membership might be and was a gift of God not a duty which is some action to be done by man but a state or relation resulting from the foundation or cause or reason of it Now if Mr. B. cannot shew as I am confident he cannot any other gift or appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church members in the old Testament unrepealed besides that of circumcision then either his antecedent as hee terms it must be meant of it or else he mocks the people of God with a pretended merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church-members unrepealed which is no where extant but is fained by himself to delude them and if it be that of Ciâ—cumcision then his minor asserts the appointment of Circumcision and hâ—s conclusion is that our infants are still to be circumcised Nor can I with all my enquiry and study conceive if he had understood himself he could mean any other For by his making admission solemn comparing it with listing of a Souldier crowning of a King it is manifest that he understood it of a solemn Rite and speaking of it as a thing that ought to be he must mean it of an act to be performed by man and limiting it now to Baptism he intimates it was by some Rite answerable to Baptism heretofore which I hardly think any learned man but would conceive must be meant of Circumcision and no other sith no oâ—her was appointed by God to infants for admission of them as visible Church-members It is true he often when I pressed him in the Dispute to speak plainly whether he meant by his appointment or Law unrepealed that of Circumcision did deny it and distinguished between the Law of infants visible Church-membership and that of Circumcision but he never shewed me a Law of infants admission as visible Church members besides it And in his arguments whereby he proves the not repealing he concludes about the not repealing of the Law of infants visible Church-membership not of their admission Of which fallacy I had in the Dispute some obscure apprehension and therefore pressed him so often to speak plainly and told him he must mean it of Circumcision which fact of mine Mr. B. did in the Dispute and doth here ch 23. represent as
as injurious and pernicious tending to take away that liberty of examining things receâ—ved and to impose on mens consciences new subscriptions and conformities as intollerable as those the Prelates urged and consequently shutting out light from shining and inducing persecution afresh and that he and such as he is who are partial in Gods law prophaning yea quite changing or dissolving the prime solemn ordinance of Christ and opposing contrary to their solemn Covenant the reformation of that abuse should be made contemptible before all the people Mal. 2.9 Mr. B. adds yet in private I confess he cited two texts to prove the repeal of Gods Ordinance and merciful gift that infants should be Church-members and I will read the two places to you which private conference I would not mention but lest it should be thought a wrong to him to overpass his onely proofs The first was Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. when I considered that such a man should deny all infants Church-membership and affirm that God hath repealed that his Ordinance and merciful gift and have no more Scripture for it then such as this and yet be so confident it maketh me amazed Hath he not a good wit that can prove that Christ hath repealed his merciful gift because he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage or that he hath shut out all infants from his Church because he hath delivered them from the inconveniences of their minority If I had no better proof then this for infant baptism I should be ashamed once to open my mouth for it Answ. Had Mr. B. any true love or justice towards me as he seems to have by his pretended loathness to mention my private conference he had not so often and with such false caluâ—niatory inferences mentioned in his writings what past in private conference concerning my censure of mens not receiving the doctrine of Antipaedobaptism my plea for plurality of places c. whereby he hath done what in him lay to defame me as proud covetous schismatical and given over by God to a reprobate minde though there was no necessity of such divulgings But much experience hath taught me to expect no better usage from an intemperate Zelot for his opinion though a pretended friend and seeming godly then from an open enemy Mr. B. is amazed that I alledged Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. as I did and but that I have learned nil admirari of such passages I should be amazed at his dealing with me in setting down my proofs though they were but in a private conference without study The thing of which he urged me to prove the repeal I remember not whether it were of the visible Church-membership of infants or of their admission The latter was it the repeal of which he denied For so was his antecedent By the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church and this is proved plainly from Gal. 4.1 c. that the ordinance of admission which was no other then circumcision of infants is repealed yea if that explication of Beza Legem enim id est totam illam legalem oeconomiam dicit fuisse instar tutoris sive curatoris ad certum tempus dati thus Englished in the New Annot. For hee saith that the law that is the whole Government of Gods house according to the law was as it were a kinde of tutorship or office of an Overseer appointed for a time be right the Church-membership visible of infants which was peculiar to the Jews and belonged to the legal Church-state is plainly limited in that place to a certain time now expired and consequently the ordinance of such Church-membership if there had been such repealed And I say that if he had so good proof for his infant baptism as this is for the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants admission and visible Church-membership unrepealed I would plead for it as he doth But Mr. B. as one that haâ—h a good wit can by his Chymistry prove hence his non repeal Nay saith he I pray you do but consider whether his own proof be not sufficient against him â— Doth not this text plainly tell us that the heir in his minority is Lord of all and so approve of the natural birth priviledge of our children in civil things And will God then deny children to be heirs of any thing and bereave them of their spiritual or Church-priviledge and neither tell us why he doth it nor that he doth it Answ. Gods heirs are but co-heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17. true believers or elect persons who are not deprived by me of any truely so called spiritual Church priviledge The priviledge of infants visible Church-membership as it came with the spiriâ—ual Church-state of Abrahams family so it ceased with the dissolution thereof of which God hath given us reason in that it was but for an appointed time by God which as it began with Gods special love to Abraham so it ended upon his loathing his unbelieving posterity and setting his love on the Gentiles Again saith he more plainly if Christ came to free the heir from his bondage and tutorage onely and from the servitude of his minority is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-membership Can any man think that this was any part of the â—ondage require those whose consciences are not wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits to judge of this soberly whether they can possibly think it a bondage to be a member both of the universal Church and of a particular Let them not here tell me that Circumcision was a bondage or that the Law was a Tutor For I speak of none of these but of their being members of the Church of God Answ. Whom Mr. B. means by person whose Consciences are wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits I cannot determine I know few men who give me more cause of fear that they are such then Mr. B. who seems to me to have more conceits and â—ancies then one and those with so much pertinacy and violent zeal promoted as me thinks searce agree to a sober man For my self I say that such a visible Church-membership as the infants of the Jews had in my soberest judgement I not onely can possibly think which Mr. B. himself also may do sith it implies no contradiction but do verily think to have been a part of the imperfect state of the Church and in some respect of the bondage For though Churchmembership be a priviledge of it self yet comparatively and in respect of some consequents attending it as namely subjection to the whole Law of Moses it is a manifest imperfection and bondage As the state of the Apostles was a state of minority bondage imperfection while Christ was on earth in comparison of the estate after his ascension when the spirit was powred out upon them John 16 7. And I doubt not to affirm that Christ
nations But infants natural fools mad-men in their fits are neither fit to consent nor to be members in the Christian visible Church no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith Mr. B. adds What then is this making them a Church in one day that Mr. T. so cloudily talks of If he say it is that then the infants were taken in I answer that is to prove the same by the same or else to argue circularly As to say their Church call did take in infants therefore the taking in of infants was peculiar to their Church call this begs the question Or to say their Church constitution is ceased because their Church call is ceased or their Church call consisting in the taking in of infants is ceased therefore their Church constitution is ceased and that Church constitution is ceased therefore the taking in of infants is ceased This arguing is like their cause Answ. I have sundry times told Mr. B. that the call in one day of the whole nation was by Abrahams authoriâ—y Gen. 17. and by Moses Exod. 19 c. otherwise then in the Christian visible Church which was by a daily addition of believers out of several families cities and nations by preaching to them the Gospel And how my arguing is framed without begging the question or any circle is before shewed And the call in one day I meanâ— of Abrahams and Moses act whether the hearts of the whole nation were bowed to consent to take the Lord for their God or no. I neither envy nor deny the enlarging of the Church by Christ nor do I think the converting or taking in more or less makes an alteration in the nature of the Church call or constitution but a call by preaching the Gospel makes an alteration in the Christian visible Church call and constitution from the Jewish sufficient to exclude infants from Christian visible church-membership But Mr. B. clamours thus against me And what means Mr. T. to talk of here one and there one To speak so contemptuously in such disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ Is not the wonderfull success of the Gospel one of our strong arguments for the truth of the Gospel and our Christian Religion And it seems Mr. T. will give this away to the Pagans rather then admit infants to be members of the Church Answ. I mean to speak as the Holy Ghost speaks 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. James 2.5 6. Rev. 5.9 and as by the Histories Ecclesiastical may be made apparent which rashly Mr. B calls speaking contemptuously in disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ as he formerly did my denial of infant Baptism accusing of my own children Nor by my saying is the argument for the truth of the Gospel and Christian Religion a whit infringed For the force of the argument is not from hence that whole nations cities houses were converted by the Gospel but that though the persons were contemptible who preached their Doctrine likely to affright men without arms against opposition of great ones there was so great success over the world as to convâ—â—t so great numbers though few in comparison of the rest even in most barbarous countreys from their long accustomed idolatry to embrace a crucified Lord. Yet saith Mr. B. Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once and five thousand afterwards and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe Acts 2.41 4.4 21.20 besides all Gentiles Was it but here one and there one when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord both men and women Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria Acts 8. Answ. It was but here one and there one as I meant it 1. It was not any whole nation or city and perhaps few whole housholds sure I am not one infant in any of the places For in Acts 2.41 they who were baptized gladly received the word and Acts 4.4 they heard the word and believed and Acts 21.20 they believed and were zealous of the Law Acts 9.35 they saw it and turned to the Lord Acts 8.2 they believed Philip. 2. These three thousand five thousand ten thousands inhabitants might and liâ—ely were but one out of one house and another out of another house As God had much people in Corinth Acts 18.10 yet but few housholds the Husband a believer the Wife an unbeliever the Servant a believer not the Master 1 Cor. 7.11 12 16 21. So many miriads might be yet but here one and there one considering that Jerusalem especially at the Feasts was full of people anâ— that the myriads are not restrained to Jerusalem but â—ight be in Judaea or perhaps in remoter parts It is evident that the number of Christians was not able to match the Persecuters and that even in Jerusalem Yea it is said Acts 21.30 that all the city was moved against Paul and the people ran together all Jerusalem was in an uproar v. 31. much ado the souldiers had to rescue him from the multitude v. 35. even at that time when the myriads are said to have been of believing Jews v. 20. The Texts Acts 9 35. 8.12 say not as Mr. B. that all that dwelt at Samaria believed nor all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron both men and women but those that turned to the Lord as is shewed Sect. 50. before Yet more Let him shew me when three thousand Jews were made church-members in a day if he can before Christs time I say if he can let him shew it me Sure ever since Abrahams time and I doubt not but before too they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born Answ. If I cannot shew it Mr. B. gains nothing my assertion that the Jewish nation were a Church together in one day by Magistrates authority the Christian Church was gathered by Apostles aâ—d others preaching whereby one was made here one day another there a believer another day not a naâ—ion city nor always a house together stands good But sith M. B. wil allow me so much favour as to shew him any thing me thinks he should not deny that more then three thousand were made church-members in one day Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. And if in the time of Solomons reign when Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude 1 Kin. 4.20 three thousand were born in one day by Mr. Bs. own grant there were three thousand added to the Church in one day Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shewed you before that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations It is a base exposition that shall say he means onely Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations and no more Answ. And what childish vanity if not worse he hath shewed in his ridiculous including infants to be discipled in
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
members For you jumble both together both causes Civil and Ecclesiastical and of both those that make to the being and well-being So that our enquiry must be Whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense and what constituteth it formally For in this you speak in dark ambiguities The 4 th Qu is Whether there was any Law Ordinance or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement and so to membership and any promise grant or Covenant conferring the right of Churchmembership and the consequent priviledges to infants To this you say both Yea and Nay if I can understand you or at least as to much of the Qu. concerning the being and part of the effect of the precept and promise Yet you conclude that you do not conceive that infants of Israel were made â—isible Churchmembers by the promises in the Covenants or the precepts fore named but by Gods transeunt fact I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant because your tying the effect to the transeunt fact doth exclude them Here we are cast upon these Qus next 5 th Qu. Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant or as I shall prove which yet make not infants Churchmembers 6 th Qu. Whether there be any transeunt fact of God which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the infants of Israel Churchmembers 7 th Qu. Whether those which you have assigned be such facts 8 th Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws precepts or grants which I maintain this you insist upon 9 th Whether such laws preceps or grants as I shall prove are capable of a repeal or revocation 10 th Qu. Whether they are actually revoked or repealed Answ. The 8th Qu. is the onely Qu. needfull to be resolved All the rest are brought in to clog the Dispute to weary me and the Reader in an indirect way most of them raised out of my words in which if I should be mistaken yet were it not thereby proved that there is such a Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed as Mr. B. asserts Nor by waving of these questions did I jumble things in much confusion but decline drawing in things impertinent Nevertheless sith Mr. B. hath used these shifts to clog the Dispute I am resolved to prosecute it in his method having first premon shed the Reader that many things here said are not true as that I seem to imply that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel that I jumble both causes Civil and Ecclesiastical and of both those that make to the being and well being that I say Yea and Nay to the 4 th Qu. that I tie the effect to the transeunt fact He adds Before all these Qs. are well handled we should easily be convinced that it had been better either have let all alone or else if we must needs have the other bout at least to have agreed on our terms and the stating of the questions better before we had begun And I think that even that is not easie to do For when I desired your plain exact and full explication of one word transeunt fact and you tell me you have plainly fully and exactly told me your meaning It falls out either through the unhappy darkness of my own understanding or yours that I know but little more of your mind then I did before and that you seem to me to have raised more doubts and darkness then you have resolved and dissipated Yet being thus far drawn in I shall briefly say somewhat to the several Qs. not following your desires to answer one alone which cannot be done to any purpose while the foregoing are unresolved because it is the clearing up of truth and not the serving of your present ends in your writings now in hand that I must intend Answ. I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler nor know I any need to Dispute so many questions or to agree on terms I shall answer him as I see meet What he desired I gave him not onely an explication of one word but also of the thing which that it raiseth so many doubts seems not to be from the darkness of the understanding but either from the lightness of the fancy or the bent of the will to find a way to blunt the Readers attention ere he comes to the 8th Qu. which it was just Mr. B. should have answered alone sith otherwise it were an unjust thing for him to put me to prove a repeal of I know not what His serving me hereby in my present ends of writing had been equal my ends and writing being onely for the truth His appear to be for a shift to uphold a while by indirect courses a tottering corruption which must fall I follow him SECT LIV. Infants were visible Churchmembers onely in the Congregation of Israel THe first question saith Mr. B. being resolved that infants were once Churchmembers to the resolving of the second question I shall prove these two Propositions 1. That it was not onely the infants of the congregation of Israel that were Churchmembers 2. The infants of Israel were members of the universal visible Church and not onely of that particular congregation The first I have proved already in my book And 1. Isaac was a Churchmember yet none of the congregation of Israel it was not Israel till Jacobs days If you say that by the congregation of Israel you mean the seed of Abraham which had the promise of Canaan yet 2. I say that Ishmael and Abrahams seed by Keturah and Esau had none of the promise and yet were Churchmembers in their infancy In Isaac shall thy seed be called that is that seed which hid the promise of Canaan And so it was confined to Jacob who got the blessing and the birthright which Esau lost and was excluded yet was of the Church from his infancy The son of the bond woman was not to be heir with the son of the free-woman yet was Ishmael an infant member If you say that by the congregation of Israel you mean all the natural seed of Abraham I add 3. The children of his bond men born in his family or bought with money were none of Abrahams natural seed and yet were Churchmembers in their infancy If you go yet further and say that by the congregation of Israel you mean all that were at the absolute dispose of Abraham or his successors and so were his own I add 4. The iâ—fants of free Proselytâ—s were none such and yet were Churchmembers If you yet go further and say that you mean by the congregation of Israel any that came under the government of Abraham or his successors then I add 5. That the Sichemites Gen. 34. were not to come under Jacobs
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
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
this Review in the ten first Sections that I think it unnecessary to say any more to what Master Drew here speaks And for what he saith If believers Infants were taken in under the legal administration and left out in the Gospel-administration the covenant dispensation under the Gospel is more uncomfortable thâ—n that under the Law it is but a vain speech as if the circumcision of Infants were such a matter of comfort that the having of no priveledge under the Gospel did recompense the loss of it without Infant-baptism as if Infant-baptism were of so great comfort to parents that without it other comfort concerning their children were nullified whereas these things arise upon mistakes as if Baptism were administred according to a persons interest in the covenant and circumcision was so and that the denying Infants Baptism is putting them out of Covenant which is but ungrounded talk as shall be further shewed in that which follows Yea when the Paedobaptists answer the Papists who would have the work of outward Baptism to take away original sin from the Infant-baptized they say onely that it seals the covenant but doth not seal the fruit of the covenant but upon condition of Faith and Repentance so that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant or the seal without Faith or Election and so much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant for the unbeliever hath the moral use of the sealing of any baptized person which the Infant hath not When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they say it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God and in the same manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world to unbelievers and their Infants and when they speak of the benefit of Baptism they say it onely seals the covenant not the persons partaking the fruit of it excepting he be an elect person dying in Infancy which yet he may have without the seal till he believe yet he hath not the moral use and comfort of it till he understand and believe at which time the Baptism in Infancy is altogether unknown to him So that indeed the comfort which Paedobaptists give to parents is either the same I give without Infant-baptism or if parents did examin it it would be found delusory What Master Drew speaks about Baptisms succession to circumsion and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptism I shall put off till I review the Dispute about Master Ms. third Concl. This is enough to satisfie that Master Drew's reasons are blunt and not sharp as was supposed SECT VI. The Arguments of Master Josias Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-baptism from their being judged in the promise is answered THere is another writing of Master Josiah Church intituled The Divine warrant of Infant-baptism of which I passed a censure in the first part of this Review Sect. 21. and I might let it pass being as the commanders of it say Dogmatical rather then Polemical and leave it to those that affect such superficial writings Yet because Master Roberts and Master Geree have commended it and Master Baxter pag. 6. of his Plain Scripture proof puts it among the chief books of which he saith If any of the men of Bewdly have taken up the union of Antipaedobaptism and have not read and studied him with others and been able to confute them he hath discovered a seared conscience which is a most unreasonable and uncharitable censure to shew the folly and vanity of Master Baxters and others conceit I shall give the Reader some taste of his overly handling the point His first Argument is thus The Infants of Christians are righty judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they may be Baptized To it I answer 1. The antecedent is ambiguous not expressing what propriety in God he means whether of justification regeneration and salvation or of outward protection prosperity among men or Ecclesiastical privilege nor where that promise is which he calls promise of propriety in God nor whether he means it of all Infants of Christians or some and if of some of which he means it and of which not nor of what sort of Christians whether such as are Christians onely by profession or really such in Gods account nor with what judgement he means whether of charity or verity probably or certainty nor upon what evidence they are with any of these sorts of judgement rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God So that I finde nothing but Sophistry in this dispensation the antecedent being perhaps true in some sense in some false and therefore it is but wast labour to refute it or answer his proofs till that he distinctly set down what he asserts and how his proofs suite with his assertion Yet I shall cast away some animadversions on this writing least my silence be disadvantage to the cause I maintain That which I conceive he means is this All the Infants of Christians by visible profession are rightly judged by a judgement of charity though not of certainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God in regard of eternal adoption and priviledge expressed in those words Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed therefore they may be Baptized Of which Argument I deny both the antecedent and the consequence The antecedent he takes upon him to prove by ten Arguments 1. The Infants of the Jews so long as they continued visible professors were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors Gen. 17.7 12. Ergo Answ. Did not Master Church affect new phrasifying which serves onely to puzzle in plain words he had said To the Jews Infants· the promise was made of being God to them therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly to be in that promise Of which neither is the antecedent true universally taken but contradicted by Paul Rom. 9.7 8. where he expresly denies the promise I will be the God of thy seed to be true of Abrahams natural seed universally taken Nor if it had been true doth it follow that what was promised to Abrahams seed is true of every true Believers muchless of the seed of every meer visible professor of Christian faith who are neithet themselves nor their children in any Scripture sense Abrahams seed nor is the proof of any weight That the promise of propriety in God was sealed to the Jews Infants by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors therefore the Jews Infant were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God For this reason in plain terms is no more then this the Jews Infants were to be circumcised Ergo they were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God that is that God would be their God which rests upon
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
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
of me to say That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not â—lest Answer My answer is the same now that it was then and having upon occasion of this charge reviewed the notes of the dispute which though very imperfect I have yet by me I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute I answered Mr. B. rightly though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities which having acquitted my self from in my Prâ—cursor Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me And I do think it necessary to tell the world that I find so little of brotherly love to me or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him And though I take him to be a godly man and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer and a slight interpreter of Scripture But to the point Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer 1. That I said That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall To declare my self more fully it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall There is the saving grace of redemption regeneration justification remission of sins adoption glorification The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace that is to the fulfilling of it is either the well using naturall abilities as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration or faith and repentance as foregoing justification remission of sins adoption glorification The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces and the conditions mentioned yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event certain necessary and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall that is that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification remission of sins adoption but on condition of true repentance and faith nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event or left to the persons to whom the promise is made to do by themselves but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished or it may be said to be conditionall that is â—o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall More briefly I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities or that justification remission of sins adoption glorification are promised upon condition of our repentance faith obedience perseverance left by God to be performed by us and not promised as certain in the event which is the Arminian sense yet deny that the promise of justification remission of sins is absolute so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified or have remission of sins without a fore faith which is charged on the Antinomians The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional yet it is all together that is called the Covenant But this speech if it be liable to exception Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost who doth expresly call all together the covenant Heb. 8.10 saying This is the Covenant which I will make and having recited all together he adds v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant And the like is Heb. 10.16 The third thing misliked in my answer is And the leading promise being noâ— conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditional But there is no just cause of excepting against this sith â—t is usuall and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part or chief part as a visible Church is called Holy or of Saints even in Scripture 1 Cor. 1.2 from the better part a field of corn where is much tare Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace though there be other promises than of saving grace and what promise is made of saving grace there is made under the covert of words expressing other things And to shew that there is reason for what I said I urge 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart Heb. 8.10 is not onely the leading promise but also it is the comprehensive promise including or inferring all the rest for therefore God will be a God to them be mercifull to their unrighteousness because he will write his Lawes in their heart to those and those onely he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former Yea it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before but write them in their heart 2. That where Lukeâ— 72 73. he puts it to be in this which I take to be absolute that he would give to us that being delivered from the hand of our enemies without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life v. 73 74 75. The fourth thing misliked in my answer is that I said That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error when he disclaimed this asserâ—ion That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed Defence of his Sermon pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. Pâ—â—dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it 's like will not be convinced by mens sayings let us try what we can do by Arguments 1. The promise of saving benefits is made onely to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed But to elect infants onely they are bestowed Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say that his
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
of the Covenant of grace in Gospel times And Jer. 34.18 19 20 is ridiculously alledged sith it speaks not of the Covenant Evangelical but of the particular Covenant which Zedekiah and the Princes of Judah made to let their Hebrew servants go free which they brake contrary to the Law Yet to shew Mr. Bls. futility in arguing there is no consequence in this reasoning In mens Covenants there are that enter Covenant and keep it and others that in like manner do enter into Covenant and not keep it and so men enter into Covenant with God and some keep it and some not therefore they that hold that God makes his Covenant of Evangelical grace onely with the elect regenerate do confound the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or the duties required in it or the entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it For the distinction remains still between all these though they be eonjoyned in the same persons as heat and light are distinct though together in flame and justification and sanctification though conjoyned in the same persons Yea sith Mr. Bl. holds some that enter into Covenant are stedfast in it he makes according to his own superficial arguing the same confusion we do and so falls into the same imagined absurdity The 2d absurdity Mr. Bl. would fasten on the tenet that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect is that then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world as in reference towards God For an hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not an hypocrite respective to religion and in Scripture use of the phrase is one that pretends for God and is not Gods now according to this opinion that onely regenerate men are in Covenant there is no such thing as an hypocrite no such sin as hypocrisi where the Gospel is preached God makes tender of himself in Covenant and in case none but regenerate persons enter Covenant then onely they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him Answ. If Mr. Bl. and other Paedobaptists had any will to deal â—onestly as men that sought to clear truth and not to pervert readâ—rs they would being so often particularly in my Postscript § 6. admonished distinguish of being in Covenant by their own aâ—t of covenanting and Gâ—ds act of promising I never denâ—ed that in respect of their own act of â—ovenanting mere visible professors may bâ— said to be in Covenant with God but denied that in respâ—ct of Gods act of promising which alone was in question sith the question being of infants they cannot be said to be in Covenant with God by their owâ— act of covenanting but only by Gods act of promising any other â—hen elect persons are in Covenant with God Now I grant it that of them to whom the Gospel-covenant is made by God there is none an hypocrite but there be hypocrites of those that enter into Covenant with God that is of those that promise to be Gods and are noâ— to whom though God tenders himself in Covenant yet he makes no Covenant or promise to them of Evangelical grace and therfore notwithstanding this imagined absurdity yet the position is true that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times as made by God to men is limited to the elect The 3d. absurdity is then no Minister in any Church may baptize any person for none can now discern infâ—llibly whether a person be regenerate and Mr. Bl. findes Christ giving charge to disciple Nations and to baptise them but findes him not giving Commission that when in the judgement of charity men have cause to conceive them to be disciples then to baptize them The Apostles staid not for observation of those signes that might in a well-grounded chariâ—y perswade that they were regenerate persons And these that fix it here â—oo ordinarily make interests the chief ground to carry their charity to a more favourable construction They that are most like to make a party with them or drive on interest their way must be â—udged persons meet for baptism of this in a shorâ— time we have large experience Those that gather up Churches and initiate them by baptism the way of the Apostles I confess in case that they would make good that they have to deal with Heathens and therefore a way of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches and retain the old baptism we see what manner of saints are received among them such that civil persons respective to sobriety chastity or upright dealing with men cannot without stain of their reputation make their companions Answ. Paedobaptists do usually plead that infants are in the Covenant of grace therefore they are to be baptized The antecedent can be meant of being in the Covenant of grace no otherwise then by Gods act of promise to be the God of a believers seed therefore they make the being in Covenant by Gods act of promise to be a persons God the rule of baptizing Now I assert that God hath not promised to be a God to any man or his seed in respect of Evangelical grace but the elect Therefore this absurdity is justly charged on the Paedobaptists that according to their hypotheses no Minister can baptize any infant in faitâ— Foâ— he must â—aptize according to them onely those infants that are in Covenant and whom he knowes to be in Covenant but those infants onely are in Covenant who are elect and no Minister can know which infant is elect or in Covenant with God which not all infants are not no not of believers not all Abrahams or Isaacs Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. Therefore according to this rule no Paedobaptist can baptize any infant in faith and a judgement of charity Mr. M. Mr. Bl. and others agree and that according to truth is not it we are to baptize by So that this absurdity doth unavoidably follow on Paedobaptists opinion which Mr. Bl. endeavours but in vain to fasten on us who do often disclaim baptizing persons upon their being in Covenant with God by his act of promise to be their God as our rule and do continually assert our baptizing persons because disciples by profession and by reason of their own covenanting to follow Christ which Mr. Bl. confesseth to be according to Christs Commission and the Apostles way in dealing with Heathens and therefore the absurdity follows not our opinion but the Paedobaptists who can baptize no infant by their rule because they cannot know any infant whom they are to baptize to be in the Covenant of grace As for Mr. Bls. confession that our practise is the way of the Apostles in case we would make good that we have to deal with Heathens I wonder Mr. Bl. a learned man should require us to make good that which of it self is so manifest For sure we have to deal with Heathens or with Jews siâ—h all the men in
no plain Scripture nor any argument for a Law or Ordinance that infants are were or shall be visible Church-members of which I need prove a repeal though I grant he hath proved a Law or Ordinance for the admission of infants by Circumcision which is the onely Law or Ordinance I finde in him either for infants visible Church-membership or their admission and if he hold it unrepealed I can quickly prove the contrary Nevertheless I follow him in his wild goose race And first saith he I expected some plain Scripture 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onely that can prove the repeal of any part of his word and mens reasonings may as likely prove vain in this as any thing if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture And 2. because I deal with those men that call for plain Scripture proof of infant baptism from us therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. T. to bring some word of God to prove the repeal of infants Church-membership But what text do you think he brought In his publike dispute he never offered to name one text nay in his sermon which he preached after upon deliberation he never offered to name one text in all the Bible to prove that God hath repealed infants Church-membership Is not this enough to make his cause suspicious Nay I am confident he cannot bring one text for it Answ. And I have long expected from Mr. B. some plain Scripture in which I might see any such Law or Ordinance distinct from Circumcision for infants visible Church-membership and admissâ—on which I might consider whâ—ther it be repealed or noâ— or capable of a repeal or not 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onely that can prove such a law and mens reasonings as it will appear in the examining them Mr. Bs. are may as likely prove as vain in this as any thing if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture And 2. because I deal with those men particularly Mr. B. that pretend plain Scripture proof for infants Church membership and Baptism but to those that justly call for such bring no express precepâ— or example of infants baptism in the N. T. which alone can be counted plain Scripture pâ—oof in this thing but consequences from Circumcision and the Jewish Church-state which have no validity but on the grant of such suppositions as are false yea in these mens disputes against Papists and Prelates and others are rejected and yet they are so extreme blinde as to think and so impudent as to bear the people in hand these are plain Scripture proofs of infants Church-membership and Baptism And therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. B. to bring me some word of God for such a law But what text do you think he brought In his publike dispute he never once offered to name one text nay in his Praesest morator sect 6. printed some few years after upon deliberation he brings none though pressed by me in my Praecursor Nevertheless sith M. B. forceth me to it I determine as I have done to others so to siâ—â— Mr. Bs. allegations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He goes on in his venemous way thus What if Mr. T. should use Magistrates as he doth infants as former Anabaptists have done hath he not as good ground and would they take it well May he not as well say when I shew him Scripture in the old Testament for Magistrates in the Church and being Gods people that it was from the peculiar state of the Jews God hath set up no Magistrates of Christians in the Church now would not our Magistrates bid him bring some Scripture to prove the repeal or else they shall take their old Testament Commission for currant and let him bring me any more Scripture to prove the repeal of infants visible Church-membership then is brought to prove the repeal of Magistrates in the Church if he can O how just is it with God that those Magistrates who favour countenance and cherish those men that would keep all Christians infants out of the Church should by the same men be put out themselves both of Church and State Answ. What Anabaptists in former times did or held it is hard to say sith we have the narration of their facts and tenents onely from their adversaries Notwithstanding Augustines reckoning Jovinian among heretiques and Hieromes invectives against Vigilantius yet learned Protestants have excused or defended both Dr. Reynold Conference with Hart ch 5. div 3. Jewels defence of the Apol. Field of the Church book ch 30 31. Cracanthorp vindic Eccl. Anglic. contra Spalat Andr. Revet sum contr tom 1. quest 1. c. Mr. B. himself would not pass without a deep censure if the writings of Mr. Crandon Mr. Eyre Dr. Kendal c. should bee taken for good proof of his tenets It is much harder and indeed a most injurious thing that the conceived opinions and practises of men of former times should be charged on Antipaedobaptists now who do disclaim them And as for this spiteful passage of Mr. B. though I have said enough to answer it in the 2d part of this Review sect 3. yet I add That I have not so good ground to deny Christian Magistracy as infants visible Church-membership that I have Scripture to prove the repeal if it must bee so called of the pretended visible Church-membership of infants which was onely in the Jewish national Church now dissolved and another frame erected by Christ but not so of the Magistracy which was not proper to the Jewish people Melchisedech was a King Job was a Magistrate Job 29 c. Civil Magistracy as the power of Parents and Masters are of the law of nature and nations Christ and his Apostles did not alter the state of Magistracy but left them as they found them and confirmed them sundry converted Governours kept their place after conversion buâ— the visible Church-membership of infants was onely in the Jewish Church the frame of which is quite altered by Christ and his Apostles and not the least hint given of any infants being in or solemn admission into the Christian visible Church but much to the contrary in the new Testament We keep infants out of the Church no otherwise then Christ and his Apostles did and if Magistrates do favour countenance and cherish us in this they do but cherish us in the doing of what the Apostles of Christ did and M. B. that doth animate the Magistrates to molest us and in his 7th humble advice to the Parliament Decemb. 24. 1654. would have us deprived of all Pastoral Cure having the publique maintenance doth shew his minde to persecute us and by his grounds had conceived himself bound in conscience to have dealt so with the Apostles if hee had been in their dayes But O how good is God to us and just to him and such as he is that the madness of such a Balaam is rebuked his advice rejected
entring them into the Jewish Church by Baptism Circumcision and an Offering and with them wives and children and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law and acting according to rules of their own In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond Now though they were joyned to the Jewish Church one after-another and the infants of the Jews as they were born yet the Jewish-Church whether at the first erection or after estabâ—ishing were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing I was to demonstrate Mr. B. goes on thus But yet one other argument Mr. T. haâ—h to prove the Church constitution altered and consequently infants now cast out or their church membership repealed And that is this They were to go up three times a year to the Temple they had their Sanedrim and High Priest Now he appealeth to all whether these be not altered And therefore the Church constitution must needs be altered and so infants put out Answ. My argument is this If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered then infants church membership is altered But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logick Where there is the same reason of things there is to be the same judgement De paribus idem est judicium The minor is proved thus The High Priest Sanhedrim repair to their Feasts had the same reason with infants visible church membership But they are altered Ergo. The major is proved thus Infants church membership was no where but in the Jewish Church we read of it no where else nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation which God had made his Church they were visible church members upon no profession of their own nor from any general determination of God Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any countrey whatsoever there being no such Law but meerly from hence because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come and so a National Church till then And for the same reason he would have one High Priest Temple repair thither at solemn Feasts a Sanhedrim their genealogies kept their possessions by lot c. But all these are altered now the Church is not National no one High Priest Temple Sanhedrim c. therefore neither infants visible Church-membership which had the same reason and no other What saith Mr. B. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better arguments are any of these essential to their Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between Priesthood Temple Sanhedrim c. as that the Church must needs fall when they fall may it not be a Church without these Answ. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better answers Is infants church-membership essential to Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between the Church and their membership as that the Church must needs fall when they fall mayâ—it not be a Church without these If the Temple c. might be altered and and were because noâ— essential to the Church infants Church-membership did cease too which was no more essential then those and which hath been proved to have the same reason with these to wit Gods making his Church National out of which the Messiah was to come Hitherto nothing is indeed answered and what is said is retorted The rest is according to Mr. Bs. vein of frivolous putting impertinent questions to me I would intreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him considerately to answer me to these 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple or Sanhedrim or High Priest or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses Ans. I think not there was no time they were a Church but they had a Priest an Altar Sacrifices distinction of clean and unclean beasts c. Were they not a Church in Aegypt and in the families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob Ans. They were 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church or constitution of the Church Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church or overthrow the old why should the taking of them away overthrow it Ans. Who saith it doth 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants why not after Moses time Ans. Who denies it Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple or Sanedrim or High Priest c. Why may they not be so when these are down why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time yet they were erected upon the same foundation the Jewish National Church as the walls fall with the roof though they rise not together because they rest on the same foundation 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down then men are cast out and women too as well as children Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered and I grant it that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church are left out I will not say cast out for they were never in of the Christian visible Church as well as children If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew I answer What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members of the Church and then set it up anew Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament but that if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church Christ repealed it when neither John Baptist nor Christ nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism without his personal faith and repentance Mr. B. saith I will wast no more time in confuting such slender arguments but shall willingly leave it to the judgement of any understanding unbyassed man whether Mr. T. have well proved that God repealed his Ordinance and revoked his mercifull gift that some infants shall be Church members Answ. It is my burthen that I must waste more time in refuting such empty scriblings as these
of yâ—ur one syllable such is discerned by trying it by a whole volume I doubt you will make what your list of it However if you should mean that such precepts there are as have for their subject the avouching God to be their God the entring into Covenant Circumcision of infants but not their Churchmembership then 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before 2. and more shall do anon 3. and it 's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative But if you mean that Churchmembership of infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts and yet that infants were not made or confirmed thereby it is the contrary that I am asserting and I have no further need to prove then by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised according to itâ—s tenour and terms is like a cause that hath no effect a father that did never generate and it 's all one as to say A gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant seeing the name is denied when the thing named and defined is granted So a precept or law to enter infants solemnly into Churchmembership which yet obligeth none so to enter them is as gross a contradiction as to say the Sun hath not heat or light and yet is truly a Sun Answ. I grant his assertion that there is no precept of God which doth not oblige to duty nor donation which doth not confer the benefit though sundry things which have the title of Gods lawes oblige not to duty and an actual promise doth not put the thing promised in present being as the next cause but the thing promised is thereby onely made future yea a promise that it shall be doth suppose it not to be and that there is something else the next and immediate cause of its actual being The imagined contradiction in my later to my former Letter is before cleared not to be so Sect. 53. Though I have said enough before in this and other fore going Sections yet to take away all colour of charging me with ambiguity 1. I acknowledge that the Covenant at Mount Sinai and the Covenant Deut. 29. did declare the people of the Jews to be Gods people or his visible Church in that the Covenant was mutual and open between them and God 2. That they were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God but by their promise to God Gods call of them made them his Church their promise to God with oâ—her acts made them visibly so 3. The promises of God Gen. 17. did not of themselves make the house of Abraham Gods visible Church 4. The call of God and such acts as whereby he separated them from others to bee his which were many made the house of Abraham Gods Church 5. The infants were members of that Church in that they were part of that peopâ—e 6. Such things as whereby they were visibly of that people their birth cohabitation c. did make them visible Churchmembers 7. Circumcision was one sign not by itsâ—lf but with other things whereby the male infants and adult were known to be of Gods visible Church 8. No promise of God nor duty of parents did make the infants actually visible Churchmembers as the next cause in act either formal or efficient If Mr. B. or any Reader will heed these passages with what goes before hee may easily discern my minde and acquit me from self-contradiction if not I think it in vain for me to use more words I pass on to that which follows SECT LVI That the People and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact is made good against Mr Bs. exceptions I Come next saith Mr. B. to the 6th Qu. Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact which without the causation of any promise or precept did make the Israelites infants Churchmembers This you affirm if you would be understood whether this your ground of infants Churchmembership or mine be righter I hope will be no hard matter for another man of common capacity to discern By a transeunt fact thus set as contradistinct to a law precept or promise either you mean the act of legislation and promise making or some other merely physical act If the former it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business For you should not put things in competition excluding the one where they both must necessarily concur the one standing in a subordination to the other Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way â—hen by a transeunt fact Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact If it be by voice is not that transient If by writing is not the act transeunt If by creation it self the act is transeunt though the effect bee permament And certainly if legislation or promising be your transeunt fact you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law or promise it being the making of such a law And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject but by the law so made nor doth the making of a promise grant or covenant confer right to the benefit which is the subject of of it any otherwise then as it is the making of that grant which shall so conferre it As the making of a knife doth not cut but the knife made and so of other instruments So that if the law oblige not or the grant confer not certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense without charging you with too great absurdity As if you should say It is not the will of the testator i. e. his testament that entiâ—leth the legatary to the legacy but it is the rranseunt fact of the testator in making that will or it is not the Soveraigns commission that authorizeth a Judge souldier c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission It is not the sign that signifieth but the transeunt fact of making that sign Were not this a contemptible arguing To charge you with this were to make you tantùm non ununreasonable And yet I know not what to say to you that is how to understand you For if you mean a mere physical transient fact which is no such legislation or promise-making then it is far more absurd then the former For if it be not a signe of Gods will obliging to duty or conferring benefit then can it not so oblige to duty nor confer benefits It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty nor any other transeunt fact but promise or other donation that can convey right to a benefit or oblige the promiser A moral or civil effect must bee produced
by a moral or civil action and not by a mere physical action which is unfit to produce such an alien effect and can go no higher then itâ—s own kinde What sense therefore I should put on your words without making them appear unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse I cannot tell For to say It is not a law but legislation is all one as to say It is not the fundamentum but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation or from which it doth result And to say it is an alien physical act which hath no such thing as right for us subject or terminus is to confound physick and morals and to speak the grossest absurdities as to say that the transient fact of eating drinking going building c. do adopt such an one to be your heir I must needs think therefore till you have better cleared your self that you have here quit your self as ill and forsaken and delivered up your Cause as palpably as ever I knew man do without an express confession that it is naught When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmembership needed no revocation forsooth because their Churchmembership was not caused by a law precept promise or covenant but by a transeunt fact then which as you leave it the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this must prove it Which I shall expect when you can prove that you can generate a man by spitting or blowing your nose or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperours Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters which was without promise or precept that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith or precept of accepting that offered mercy entering into Covenant and re-ingaging them to God which are the promise and precept Mr. B derives their visible Church-membership from Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes in that they were visibly a part of that people who were Gods Church So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite 1. that God should make that people hâ—s Church this he did by the transeunt fact described 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that people this he did by their bringing into the world ranking them among his people so as that they were discernable by their birth nursing circumcision habitation genealogy and such other signes to bee part of that Church Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visibility in the relations 1. of a part to the whole 2. of a people that are Gods that is 1. separated from other people 2. called and taken or brought to God These things are done by various acts which I conceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. c. 22. tit 13. Topic. c. 3. tit 14. Stierius part Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause is that which truly flows into the effect and nextly reacheth it by its activity A Moral Cause is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it yet so behaves himself that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise reward or punishment Such are causes applying the agent to the patient counselling commanding perswading exhorting instigating meriting permitting when they might and should binder c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it formally a right to a benefit or a benefit though it may be so consecutively or they may follow on it But it is a complex term noting a state with a douâ—le relation and imports a natural effect or term of action as well if not more then a moral and is from physical as well as moral causes and in infants visible Churchmembership I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such though to the visible Churchmembership of the people or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do concur which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him As for his outcries of grossest absurdities incoherent dreams unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse contemptible arguing obtuse subtility contradictions palpable forsaking and delivering up my Cause generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick I pass by it as being of ill savour hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings and either shew me my errour or discern his own Mr. B. goes on thus In consideration of the 7th Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient fact which you here describe And first of the reason of that name You say that you call it transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future And do you think this the common sense of the word or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand Answ. I do 1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts and yet not eternal Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts of whom I spake are eternal We use saith he to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum Answ. So do I. But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent Answ. Yea and immanent too But use your sence as long as we understand it Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term if you understand it if not I must alter it 2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely past actions which you call transeunt it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years and so did not by your own doctrine make any Churchmembers till the end of those years Answ. It doth but seem so the truth is in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished but that there was an addition till that people came to thei◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature in which respect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact which I hope when he understands it Mr. B. will give me leave to do 3. Saith he But Sir the question is not Whether it were a transeunt fact
And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Churchmember many years before Circumcision Answ. I grant all this 6. Saith he If this be your meaning I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of infants Churchmembership before Abrahams days if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur. Answ. I shall 7. Saith he If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any infants Churchmembers then it must be any one for you no more assign it to one of them then to another onely say chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt But surely some of these acts particularly â—annot do it As the leading to Padan Aram the removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving therâ— setling their Army c. Did any one of these make infants to become Churchmembers Answ. No But I did assign it to one of them more then to another to wit the beginning to Abrams call the accomplishing to the bringing of them out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 8. Saith he Nay suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the institution of Circumcision yet could not your Doctrine hold good For some of these acts are of an alien nature and no more apt to cause infant Churchmembership then a bull to generate a bird What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of infants Church-membership None I think at least if it be such an Army as ours For surely the setling of ours caused no such thing as you well know What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram or removal to Aegypt to make infants Churchmembers Nay how strange is it that the removing of Churchmembers and such as had been infant Churchmembers as Ishmael Keturahs children Esau must cause infant Churchmembership Sure it was no cause of their own Keturahs children were Churchmembers in infancy I enquire of you by what act they were made such You say by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part Very good It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews is a taking of the removed to be of that people or else it is not onely the taking that people but also the removal from that people that maketh Churchmembers even the removed as well as the taken both which are alike absurd Answ. 1. I mean not as Mr. B. supposeth I might 2. The setling of the Army had remotely causation of infants Churchmembership for by it the Israelites were a well formed Congregation Church or Commonwealth and by which the infants were a part which is their Church-membership 3. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling of the Church as that the Antiprelatists congregations had been either none or much oppressed iâ— they had not broken the force of the opposite party Nor dare I be so unthankfull to God or them as not to acknowledge the great mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby however Mr. B. fret at our liberty and jibe at the instruments 4. The leading to Padan Aram removal to Aegypt were acts of providence wherby Jacobs house were encreased and preserved which I conceive were some of those acts whereby he made them a people to himself 5. Ishmaels Keturahs children's Esau's removal were some acts whereby the congregation of Israel became Gods severed or a peculiar people 6. Keturahs children were visible Churchmembers while they were part of Abrahams house called after the people of the Jews by Gods taking of the people of the Jews and consequently them as a part and yet the removal of them was after one act whereby the people of the Jews were made to God a severed people from them and consequently their infants Churchmembers Distinguish the times and the different state of things and intentions of God in his providences and these seeming incoherences will be found consistent 9. Saith he And I pray you tell me yet a little better how an act can make a man a Churchmember that was one long before that was done You cannot here say that it was before in esse morali and had a moral causation How then could your chiefest act the bringing out of Aegypt make those infants Churchmembers that were born in Aegypt and were Churchmembers before Or how could it be any part of the cause Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Churchmember when he was in the basket on the waters And when you answer this you may do well to go a little fâ—râ—her and tell me how such an act concurreth to make him an infant Church-member that was dead an hunded or two hundred years before that act was done For example how did the setling of the Israelites Army or inheritance or the Covenant on Mount Sinai make Ishmael or Esau or Isaac or Jacob Churchmembers Answ. The infants of Israel were Churchmembers in that they were a part of the congregation or people af Israel which was a fluent body and was taken to be Gods Church by a succession of acts whereof some were causes which began some continued some compleated and the several acts made the Churchmembers of that age yet all by vertue of the first call of Abraham whereby God declared his intention to make his house a Nation and his Church first more obscurely then more clearly The bringing out of Aegypt tended to make the Israelites a severed people and consequently all that were Churchmembers were by that act such the setling of the Army inheritance Covenant at Mount Sinai tended to make them a well formed people and to the accomplishment of the taking the Jews to be Gods people and consequently the infanâ—s to be Churchmembers which came after them Which if so understood there is nothing in my conceit which infers the making that a cause which is after the effect 10. Saith Mr. B. I desire you also to tell me by the next what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430 years at least together so as to make them one fact And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years onely and whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact and assign it to this office Answ. 1. These acts are knit together into one fact by the unity of end designed and work accomplished as the many acts of several ages did make one fact of which the Poet speaks Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem to raise the Roman Empire 2. You might if God had so contrived it and brought the thing to pass in that time which he did in a longer 3. I
do all expresly tell how God severed Abram from the Chaldees how he made his house his Church promising to encrease and to settle it and neither Moses nor the Levites nor Stephan do go higher in the narration of Gods calling of the Hebrews to be his people And I think it safest to go no higher then the Scripture What Mr. B. adds after shall have answer in its place He adds So Exod. 19.4 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Egypt did make Israel a Church or the infants or any others members of it But onely that by fulfilling a former promise in the deliverance of a people formerly his own he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies The same I say of Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 I will not believe yet but that you believe your self that the Israelites and their infants were as truly Churchmembers before as after their deliverance out of Egypt And mee thinks the texts you cite might put it out of doubt What if God say Hos. 11.1 When Israel was a childe I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Egypt did make him his son that was none before or to prove that Israel was Gods son before he called him out of Aegypt If you should maintain the former I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself to whom the Evangelist applieth this text and so you may prove as fairly That Christ was none of Gods son till he was called out of Egypt but was made his son by that call Certainly the Text termeth him Gods son that was called as being so before that call By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine and try whether it be a Transeunt fact or a Law and Covenant that made infants and all others Churchmembers and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it and go so far on such a ground yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable non sense or absurdities then let them still follow you in the dark for I expect not that reason should recover them Answ. My conceits were and are still that infants were onely visible Churchmembers in the Church of the Hebrews or Congregation of Israel and that they were such not apart by themselves but as they were a part of that people which God took for his Church which made a peculiar Commonwealth and Chureh to God consisting of the same persons This God did not by a promise to be God to the faithful and their seed as the sole efficient and a precept of the parents to accept of this offered mercy and to dedicate them and re-engage them to God as Mr. B. conceives but by a transeunt fact containing many acts of Gods providence whereby they were severed from other people and appropriate to God The prime act of Gods providence whereby God brought this to pass was Gods calling of Abram out of Uâ— whereby he severed them from idolaters and by degrees establâ—shed his worship in Abrahams house upon which followed a long tract of providences which I mentioned as tending to the same end And this calling of Abram I refer the beginning of that people and Church to and I think I follow therein the Scriptures The other chief act of providence was Gods calling of Israel out of Egypt wherein I comprehend all the acts mentioned by me in my Letter which followed by which I said it was completed and to that end I alleged many as I concâ—iâ—e express texts not to prove that they then began to be Gods people as Mr. B. contrary to my plain words insinuates but to prove that then they were completed that is completely severed from other people and formed into a Church or Commonwealth with Lawes distribution of Offices order and other things requisite thereunto which they had not before And thus I interpret their bringing to God Exod. 19.4 the bringing them up out of the land of Egypt to bee their God Levit. 11.45 their redeeming to bee his people Nehem. 1.10 their calling out of Egypt Hos. 11.1 That is from a miserable state among idolatrous oppressors to be a people of themselves in a complete state of liberty under Gods rule which I conceive described by Ezech. ch 16. under the similitude of a childe cast out relieved and educated If Mr. B. can shew any non-sense or absurdity herein it is surely that which the plain Scripture affords or else I am in a dream and if Mr. B. bee awake I think hee may espie non-sense and absurdity manifold in his conceit of visible Churchmembership as a right to a benefit of such a Covenant and Condition and Precept which hee imagines to confer it I am willing Mr. Bs. Doctrine and mine bee compared though I lay so little weight on this point that I think if I bee mistaken neither is Mr. Bs. cause gained nor mine lost I would have none follow me in the dark nor would I have men befooled by Mr. Bs. misrepresentations of me and others much less by his frivolous Rhetorick in which hee discovers a great deal of prejudice rashness confidence and intemperate zeal with which I think him so drunken that I doubt whether reason will recover him till some providence of God bring him to see his folly which I think will much appear in that which followes on which nevertheless I conceive hee builds the main or whole of his Cause of Infants visible Churchmembership SECT LVII Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26 27 28. or Gen. 3.15 I Come now saith Mr. B. to the 8 th Qu. that is to speak to the point which you propounded You urge me to cite to you the particular texts that contain this Law Ordinance Precept or Covenant To which I answer thus 1. There are two sorts of Laws one which firâ—â— make a duty the other which suppose it so made and do onely call for obedience and excite thereto or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto If I could sheâ— you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty or granting the priviledg of Churchmembership it were noâ— the least disparagement to my cause as long as I can shew you those following laws which presuppose this You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of Where then was Gods will manifâ—sted about such things as this but in tradition and nature If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit then what need he make a new law about it or why should
may further them Of which though much may be said I shall say no more because I will not stand on things so much questioned Answ. I might then well have omitted this as of no validity but to shew the multiplicity of Paedobaptists errours He gâ—es on thus I come next to prove from other parts of Scripture That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to â—e interpreted as including infants 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened do expresly comprehend infants as to be Churchmembers then is this fundamental promise so to be understood or then doth this also comprehend them But the antecedent is certain therefore so is the consequent The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the father of the faithful which comprehended infants for Churchmembers The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending infants was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened Which is proved thus Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer therefore they were the same For there is but one such If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied that I know of That the promise to Abraham was the same is evident from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of Faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law buâ— through the righteousness of faith Now it 's certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend infants The consequence of the mâ—jor then iâ— evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to bee expounded by the same expressed more fully And it 's acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Answ. That the fundamental promise of grace Gen. 3.15 did include infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it This I deny that it includes all infants or all infants of believers and that any infant is made a visible Churchmember by that promise as the next cause or the sole efficient which is Mr. Bs. term neither of these is proved by him I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical grace though mixt as I have often shewed and that it did include infants and that they were Churchmembers to wit of the invisible Church of the elect I mean so many as the Covenant of Evangelical grace was made to I grant also that Abrahams infants in his house were visible Churchmembers but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by vertue of the transeunt fact before asserted by me and if in any respect by vertue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather thâ—n Evangelical So that although I deny that from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. it is proved that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen 17. and that the promises Gen. 17.4.5 6 8. were additional to the main Covenant and not as well the main Covenant as v. 7 yet I grant Mr. Bs. conclusions which he here infers that the promises Gen. 3.15 17.7 did comprehend infants that there is but one Covenant of free justification by faith in both places that the one may explain the other that infants were from the beginning Churchmembers that is members of the invisible Church of the â—lect But this I deny that this is true of all or perhaâ—s onely of the infants of believers or that because they are of the invisible therefore they are members of the visible Church there being more required to make visible Church-members then election the Covenant of grace and parents faith But Mr. B. adds â— That the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Churchmember that had infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose infants also were not Churchmembers Except onely the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their infants be Churchmembers I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one infant of a Churchmember in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Churchmember except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Answ. Mr. B. undertakes to prove Gods constant administration but instead of proving sends me a challenge and hoâ—ly urgeth me to answer it which course indeed is ridiculous to the intelligent yet subdolous as taking much with shallow heads who know not the laws of Dispute as if he got the better of me if I did not answer it But let such know 1 That it is Mr. Bs. part now to prove mine onely to answer 2. That if I could not answer either through defâ—ct of reading memory histories in such matters or such like cause yet this is no proof of Mr. Bs. assertion 3. That I have no reason to answer Mr. Bs. questions and challenges but his arguments 1. Because I find a meer captious spirit in him seeking advantage to himself from my words which he very seldome doth rightly represent to the Reader when he wants proof of his assertions as appears most evidently in this his answer to my Letter in which he hath gathered almost half his answer besides the business propounded from my writing to him 2. That the understandings of men even of Scholiers and Learned men are so superficial or so partial that without ever examining yea or reading my writings upon Mr. Bs. exclamations and vile suggestions of me and mine answers they do most unrighteously and like men that seek not the truth conclude on his side scorn and speak evil of me and the cause I assert which is indeed the cause of Christ of which I have much experience 4. Nevertheless I answer his challenge categorically thus 1. No infant born of a Churchmember was a visible Churchmember in the Christian Church or any other besides that of the Nation of the Hebrews as I have proved before
way or other And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common At least if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed upon the freeness of Gods grace or the eminency of Abrahams obedience yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithfull and obedient yea to prefer that before his own life and not a son onely it may be hence gathered that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that account will bless theirs on the same with the same blessings in the main as to his favour and acceptance of them though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of external things Answ. Mr. B. like another Procrustes though in vain would fain rack the Texts Gen 22.16 17 18. 26.3 4 5. to his purpose Though I deny not but a common mercy may be granted on a special reasâ—n and a special mercy on a common reason God being a free agent yet in this business the reason of Abrahams mercy and the mercy it self are both so special and proper that it is extream violence to the Texts to apply Abrahams singular obedience in offering his son so signally eminent Heb 11.17 Jam. 2.21 to every believers obedience and the blessing granted to his seed that it should be as the stars of heaven as the sand on the sea shore that in it all nations should bless themselves or be blessed to every believers natural seed and their visible Churchmembership This kind of arguing is too ridiculous to deserve a serious refutation Yet he hath not done In Exod. 12.48 saith he there is a law for the circumcising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land that will keep the passover which comprehendeth their Churchmembership as is shewed Answ. I grant there is but not a law unrepealed SECT LXI Covenants promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel the righteous prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed THe promise saith Mr. B. to the whole people of Israel infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdome of Priests and a holy Nation Exod. 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sence yet no more truth then when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. it is expresly a promise de futuro to a nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithfull who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmation the blessing of Churchmembership to infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Churchmembership It is undeniable therefore that such Churchmembership is here granted by promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it 's to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant ver 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now Answ. I never denied promises to be to the whole people of Israel but deny that they were by a promise as the sole efficient cause Gods visible Church and their infants members The promise Exod. 19.5 6. presupposed their Churchmembership and promiseth continuance of it in an eminent manner The Israelites were Churchmembers without the condition of obedience before the Law was given yea Ahaz Manasseh c. were visible Churchmembers though they were Idolaters but they lost that peculiarity holiness priesthood upon their disobedience which was there promised and so did the people they lost the dominion temple priesthood Urim and Thummim and other priviledges which are meant thereby and should have been continued if they had not broken Gods Covenant by Idolatry Yet no other nation could have had that state though they had been obedient and kept the Laws God having given those laws peculiarly to that nation and confined that honour to that people till the Messiah came And though Peter 1 Pet. 2.5 9. apply these to believers yet not in the same manner as they are meant Exod. 19.5 6. nor is any infant now of a believer a visible Churchmember by vertue of that promise In Deut. 14.1 2. The infants saith Mr. B. with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God Answ. Be it so yet this is not ascribed to a promise or precept but to Gods choise of them And saith Mr. B. Deut. 26.17 18. the Covenant is expressed thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. and that thou mayest be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that infants are included Answ. There is a promise of God to them but that did not make their infants visible Churchmembers though I deny not their avouching the Lord for their God which was a transeunt fact did shew them to be visible Churchmembers nor do I any where deny that our Covenant or promise to God doth make us visible Churchmembers but Gods Covenant or promise to infants upon the parents faith as Mr. B. asserts Mr. B. adds So Deut. 28.4 9. where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandements they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as hee had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant or promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means Answ. It doth but the benefit promised v. 4. is not infants visible Churchmembership but encrease health
remunerative mercy or avenging justice 4. It is not in meer indifferency but of moment to these ends that hee doth so Mr. B. proceeds thus The minor I prove in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice I prove thus If God never revoke his mercies nor repeal his ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked this mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain that God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him therefore to such he hath not so revoked it Answ. Gods revoking mercies in justice to the parties hurt is sometimes without the particular persons breaking Covenant with him or his desert Are not the infants of Adam deprived of life in justice to their hurt without their breaking Covenant with God or their personal desert Are not many infants and others deprived of the preaching of the Gospel who yet are descended from faithfull ancestors who never brake Covenant with God onely for that the nation of which they are a part are over-run by barbarous people they carried away captive they and their children made slaves Do not these things happen to the most godly Saints Doth not Solomon tell us Eccles. 9.2 that all things come alike to all Doth not the Apostle tell us Rom. 9.11 12. For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to the cleâ—ion might stand not of works but of him that calleth It was said to Rebecca the elder shall serve the younger As it 〈◊〉 written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated whence v. 18. he infers therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardeneth And again Rom. 11.33 after he had considered the various ways of Gods dealing with Jews and Gentiles he thus concludes O the depth of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements and his paths past finding out From whence and from innumerable experiments of thousands of godly Greeks whose children are taken from them and made Turks and others I may safely deny the minor of Mr. Bs. argument which he saith is certain as being most certainly false and like the arguing of the Disciples John 9 2. which Christ refuted v. 3. concerning the man who was born blind But Mr. B. goes on to prove it thus That this is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. and frequently past denial Answ. That the visible Churchmembership of infants in the Jewish national Church was a mercy it s not denied but that it was such a mercy as Mr. B. makes it above to contain essentially a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour proteâ—tion provision and other blessings which are due from so powerfull and gracious a Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members is neither true nor proved from Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. where the being a God to them doth not necessarily include all these benefits nor if it did doth it ascribe them to their visible Church-membership but to their obedience to his laws implied in the phrase that he may establish thee for a people to himself that is saith Piscator in his Scholie on the place That he may require worship from thee by obedience towards his precepts and so may bind thee to himself Which sense the rest of Moses his speech in that and the following chapter shew and consequently they presuppose not onely their Covenant with God and their visible Churchmembership but also their keeping the law so far as the blessings were legal and their belief and obedience to the Gospel so far as they are Evangelical 2. Saith Mr. B. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant breakers I prove briefly thus 1. From the mercifull nature and constant dealings of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth most vainly intimate them to be cast off by God who are not visible Churchmembers which if true it would prove that all infants dying in the womb are cast off by God with many more who are not visible Churchmembers and yet are blessed persons 2. For Gods mercifull nature it doth not hinder but that God may cast off them who cast not off him sith his mercifull nature doth not act as a natural agent but as a free agent and he hath resolved us Exod. 33.19 Rom. 9.15 I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion even then when he proclaimed his Name to be gracious and mercifull 3. â—t is false as hath been before proved that the constant dealingâ— of God are such as that he never casteth off those that cast not him off 2. Saith Mr. B. From his truth and faithfulneâ—â— For else we should make God the Covenant breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy Answ. This argument indeed were good if God had made this Covenant with men That whoever of them believe in Christ their infant children should be Churchmembers visible in his Church Jewish or Catholick But there was never such a Covenant made by God and therefore though he alters the frame of the Church so as to leave out infants of beleivers from being visible members he breaks no Covenant 3. Saith he From the immutability and constancy of God His gifts and calling are without repentance Answ. God is indeed immutable and constant in his being and promises and his gifts of election foreknowledge effectual calling meant Rom. 11.29 as v. 28 27 26 7 5 2 shew are without repentance Rom. 8.30 Rom. 9.6 But the gift of visible Churchmembership is not such even according to Mr. B. Cain was a visible Churchmember yet cast off with many more Many a believers child is in infancy taken from him and made a Mahometan so as that he never is a visible Christian and yet God is unchangeable and his gifts meant Rom. 11.29 without repentance 4. Saith he Scripture frequently layeth all the cause of all evil of suffering upon mans sinning Mic. 1.5 Hos. 13.9 Answ. 1. He supposeth but proveth not that the non-non-visible Churchmembership Christian of infants is an evil of suffering which I deny 2. It is false that the Scripture ever layeth all the cause of all the evil of suffering upon the mans sinning who suffereth the contrary is manifest in the death of infants by Adams sin Rom. 5.12 3. Some sufferings our Lord Christ denies to be from the special sin of children or parents John 9.3 4. The Texts alledged prove not Mr. Bs. proposition the former proves onely the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem to be for their
to be taken off it Answ. I grant it yet doubt whether the Church be termed so 1 Tim. 3.15 and not rather either the mystery of Godliness v. 16. as Cameron de Eccles. c. de Eccles. durati de Eccl. Const. or Timothy as Gataker Cinni lib. 2. c. 20. Again saith Mr. B. the Church visible is the visible body of Christ but it is no mercy to be separated from Christs body Answ. True yet it may be a mercy in respect of the yoke of the law not to be in the visible Church Jewish yea by accident it may be a mercy to be separated from a visible Church Christian as when the Church is tyrannous in its rule or unsound in the doctrine taught to it Again saith he the Church visible is Christs visible Kingdome But it is no mercy to be out of Christs Kingdome therefore it is no mercy to be out of the Church Answ. The same which was made to the former objection is to this Lastly saith Mr. B. Do but read all those hundred glorious things that are spoken of the City of God all those high praises that are given to the Jewish Church in Deut. and the Psalms and all the Scriptures who is like unto thee O Israel c. And then read all the far more glorious things that are spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ And if after this you can still believe that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church and never take them into the other and that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fiâ—lier save them out of his Church then in it I say if after reading the foresaid passages you can believe this for my part I give you up as forlorn and look upon your understandings in this as forsaken by God and not onely void of spiritual illumination but common reason and pray the Lord to save the understandings of all his people from such a plague and to rescue yours before you go further Answ. I say not that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church nor that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fitlier save them out of his Church then in it but that God never took them into his visible Church Christian and that Christs comming in the flesh is a mercy recompensing the visible Churchmembership Jewish by birth when God braâ—e off that people from the olive for their unbelief and that Christ can and doth as fitly save infants though not in the visible Church Christian as he did when they were in the visible Church Jewish and yet fear not Mr. Bs. direful omen and sad despair of my understanding but have as good hopes of mine and my followers understandings in this thing as of Mr. Bs. and his followers and leave it to the intelligent to judge whether we are void not onely of spiritual illumination but common reason I have read what is said of Israel and yet think it a mercy now not to bee a viâ—â—ble Churchmember in it no not though it were now as it was in the best state under David Solomon c. And I conceive Mr. B. hath read many hundreds of as glorious things spoken of Moses Law as of the Church and yet I think Mr. B. counts it a mercy now not to be under it I finde the glorious things spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ meant all or most of it as it contains that part which is the invisible Church of true believers or elect persons And I judge God hath dealt mercifully with infants if he put them into the invisible Church though hee put them not into the visible if not either their being in the visible benefits them not or aggravates their condemnation Mr. B. proceeds thus But let us see what Mr. T. answers to this in his Sermon which upon deliberation hee afterward preached to confute my arguments and therefore â—annoâ— lay the blame upon his unpreparedness And truly in my judgement he doth here plainly throw down his weapons and give up the whole cause though not directly confessing his errour he is not yet so happy I were best give you his own words lest I be thought to wrong him they are these As for those petty reasons if it be done it must bee in mercy or judgement I say in mercy in respect of the whole Catholike Church now Christ being come and wee haâ—ing a more spiritual churchstate then they had their churchstate was more carnal and fleshly and agreeable to their time of minority It is in mercy that it is taken away And as for that exception It cannot be taken away in mercy unless some priviledge be to them in stead of it We answer It is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge be to them So far Mr. Ts. words I confess I never heard a cause more plainly forsaken except a man should say flatly I have erred or I recant 1. He much altereth the terms of my argument as you may see by it before The argument is thus It can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken away from them except it be to give a greater in its stead But here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked or taken away To call these petty reasons is the onely strength of Mr. T. his answer For I pray you mark 1. Hee never denâ—ed the major proposition that it can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken from them except they may have a greater in stead He could not deny this with any shew of reason For otherwise if it be a mercy meerly to deprive the creature of mercy then wee shall turn hell into heaven and make it the greatest place of mercies because none are deprived of mercy so much as they no nor of this particular mercy for none are further removed from being members of the Church then the damned Answ. It is true finding the boastings concerning Mr. Bs. dispute Janu. 1. 1649. to be many after my return from Leimster to which place I was then designed and where I was Janu. 6. I did though without any copy of the disputation or arguments in writing which I could not obtain from Mr. B. as well as my memory could bear them away in the close of my Afternoons Sermon Jan. 13. at Bewdley recite and refute his arguments in the disputation Wherein it is true I was somewhat more deliberate then in the dispute yet for want of the arguments in writing I could not then give so full and exact an answer to his arguments as had been requisite nor perhaps shall now to this because Mr. B. doth not plainly set down though requested by me what that benefit priviledge or mercy is which he conceives annexed to infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed But that either
I throw down my weapons or forsake my cause by my answer then to this argument is but Mr. Bs. dream Of what alteration there was of the terms of his argument he must bear the blame who would not give me his arguments in writing under his own hand nor am I to be blamed for drawing it so short being fearful to wrong him by a fuller reciting And I perceive I had great cause so to do when I finde Mr. B. himself altering the terms of his own major in a few lines in the former it is except it be to give a greater in its stead in the later except that they may have a greater in stead which are not the same And for my answer if my terming his arguments petty reasonings had been mine onely answer yet it had been a good and sufficient answer if this be granted which I conceive an evident truth that of Divine institution and such is this of visible Churchmembership there is no reason can be right but what is from Gods own appointment though it may seem right to us it should be so Papists argue that if God did not make one oecumenical Bishop as there was one High Priest among the Jews to preserve unity non satis discretuâ— esset he should not be discreet enough Now this seems to our reason plausible and yet we justly say that in things positive our reason is deceivable and Gods appointment onely is to be attended And so it is in this though this reason of Mr. B. seem plausible yet it were no forsaking the cause though I could not answer it any otherwise then thus It is Mr. Bs. petty reasoning from his own conceits of what he imagines fiâ— in a matter of meer institution concerning which it is nevertheless manifest from the History of the New Testament that God hath appointed otherwise then is Gods way according to his reason which indeed is but arrogant presumption when it prescribes to God But I shall answer his argument more amply And though I did not deny his major iâ— the Dispute or Sermon I say if it be understood oâ— a greater mercy in the same kind and to the same persons it is not true the believing Jews were deprived of their possessions in Judea in mercy yet had not a greater meâ—cy in the same kind but another in the gifts of the spirit it was in mercy that the Priests converted to the faith were deprived of their office in the Temple and their children of the portion of the offerings there which were mercies to them and yet no such office or portion provided for them and their children but the benefit redoundâ—d to the Gentiles converted whose conversion was prayed for by David Isaiah c. and was a mercy to them though their posterity might be broken off and the national Church dissolved I conceive that Gods ways are so free and various in this kind that Mr Bs. maâ—or cannot be universally true not is Mr. Bs. reason cogent For suppose God annihilate in mercy there is no greater mercy given yet Hell is not turned into Heaven and made the greatest place of mercies in this case there is a meer deprivation of mercy in mercy But the thing is more apparent in deprivations of some temporal benefits God may deprive in mercy that is not in judgement of some temporal benefit meerly because he will out of his freedome to dispose of his own yet give no greater mercy in stead of it then he should have had if that had not been taken away and that God doth not do so who can say me thinks the Apostles determination Rom. 11.34 should satisfie that he doth And yet Hell should not be the greatest place of mercies for there is not onely a privation of temporal but also of spiritual and eternal mercies and that too with accumulation of torments which is otherwise in the case proposed And for the particular mercy of Church-membership the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was but a temporal mercy and a comparative mercy in respect of the nations it neither certainly assured their eternal nor present welfare yea when Christ came considering how the nation of the Jews was against Christ it was then rather their danger then their mercy and was a recompenced sufficiently in being out of that Church which consisted of a rebellious and gainsaying people and being though not visible Churchmembers in the Christian society yet in the families where the spirit of God was given and Christ known Mr. B. adds 2. And observe next that as Mr T. denieth not the major so here be plainly grants the minor and so yeelds the whole cause For the minor was that here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership Doth not Mr. T. acknowledge this when be saith twice over 1. That it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have their infants put out of the Church And so if the mercy be onely to the catholick Church that they be none of the Church visible then it is not to them a mercy So that he taketh it to be a mercy onely to others but none to them according to this answer 2. Yea he saith it more plainly the second time that it is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge much less a greater mercy be to them to the infants themselves So that for my part I think I may well break off here and take the whole cause as yeelded For if it be no mercy to any to be deprived of mercy except that they may have a greater And if infants have no greater in stead of this but onely their parents have a greater and both these be confessed then it must follow that it is no mercy to infants to be deprived of this mercy of their Churchmembership and consequently God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good which is the thing I am proving And Mr. T. yeeldeth that it is not taken from them in justice to their hurt and therefore it is not taken from them at all And thus you see what is become of the cause that hath been driven on with such confidence Answ. However I onely denied the minor in the Dispute and Sermon yet Mr. B. may see by the answer before that here I deny his major in the first argument in this chapter yea and that he can prove that it is not in justice that the Churchmembership visible Jewish ceased though I stil adhere to it that it was in mercy and of this argument I have here denied the major though I did not so before and am ready to shew that I have not yeelded the minor nor any whit of the cause and therefore suppose Mr. B. hath need to manage his weapons better ere he gain this cause yea though he should have this argument yeelded yet the cause is not gained for the reason before given But let us view his minor and my answer His minor is that
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
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
and therefore it is enough for me to deny it as being false concerning abortives still-born infant children elect and others 10. Saith he If Christ have promised his presence to his Church to the end of the world and to walk among his golden canâ—lesticks and take pleasure in her but not so to those without the Church then it is better being withâ—n though but as the Jews then without But the former is true therefore the latter Did I not resolve on breviâ—y it were easier to cite multitudes of texts for all these Answ. Mr. B. should prove his minor that Christ hath promised these things to infants in the visible Church Jewish and not to infants of believers who are not visible churchmembers Christian for which though he talk of multitudes of texts yet I shall not believe he hath any till he produce them He adds But upon this much I say to the contrary minded as Joshua in another case choose you of what society you will be of but as for me and my houshold we will be of the Church of God Answ. And so say I if I can prevail with them or for them Mr. B. adds And had I children I should be loth God should shut thâ—m out Answ. So sâ—y I. Again Mr. B. For without are dogs extortioners liars c. Even Christ calls the woman of Canaan that was without a dog though when he had admitted her into his Church she became a daughter Answ. The words Revel 22.15 without are dogs the verse foregoing shews to be meant of being without the city where the blessed enter and it being compared with Rev. 21.8 thence appears that they that are without are cast into the lake burning with fire and brimstone which is the second death which if he say as his words intimate of all that are not visible churchmembers he pronounceth a bloudy sentence against millions that are in heaven and must be a hundred times more uncomfortable to parents concerning their abortive still-born children then any thing I ever held And his abuse of Christs words Matth. 15.26 Mark 7 27. is yet more gross in alledging them after that Rev 22.15 as if dogs Matth. 15.26 were of the same sense with dogs in the other whereas Rev. 12.15 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth note such as rend them that give holy things to them Matth. 7.6 but Matth. 15.26 Mark 7.27 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little dogs and doth not note persons so called from their profane â—ischievous impious behaviour but in opposition to children that is Jews such as were of Gâ—â—tile discent and therefore accounted unclean And the application of them is as bad as if the not maâ—ing infants Christian visible churchmembers made them dogs in either sense Whereas to make theâ— dogs as Rev. 22.15 is meant is not onely to make them non-visible churchmembers but also of most wicked manners and damned wretches and the term dogs as used Matth. 15 26. might be applied as well to visible church-members not Jewish such as Cornelius Acts 10.2 as to those out of it Nor doth it appear that our Lord Christ either admitted the woman of Canaan into his Church or termed her daughter as Mr. Bs. words intimate but woman after her manifestation of faith So that Mr. B. as his wont is doth prophanely abuse the Scripture to make his adversaries teneâ— appear odious without cause What he adds I say therefore as Peter whither shall we go if we forsake the Church It is good for us to be here those that will needs think it better to be out of the Church then in it let them go they need no Anathema nor excommunication seeing they think it such a mercy to bee without the Church I will not say of it as Paul of his ship except ye abide in it ye cannot â—ee saved and so I conclude Christ did not come to believers hurt by unchurching their children doth but shew his malignant disposition to spit as much venome as hee can against his antagonists and their doctrine calumniating it as tending to forsaking the Church thinking it better to be out of the Church then in it thinking it a mercy to bee without the Church Christ did come to believers hurt by unchurching their children none of which followes from my tenet but the charging of them on it shewing Mr. Bs. spightfulness towards mee and the truth which the Lord forgive him In the same vein of scribling Mr. B. proceeds thus ch 15. My 10th arg is this from Heb. 8.6 Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises Heb. 7.22 And the Author of a better testament Rom. 5.14 15 20. Where sin abounded grace much more abounded Ephes. 3.19 20. That ye may comprehend the height and breadth and length and depth and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledg with a hundred the like places from whence I argue thus If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comfort therein then it was before Christs comming then our children ought to bee Churchmembers and consequently that ordinance and merciful gift is not repealed But all the said texts and many more shew that the Church of Christ is not in a worse condition now then it was then but unconceivably better therefore our children ought to bee Churchmembers as well as theirs was then I have before proved that it is worse to bee out of ehe Church then in it and then nothing else can bee said against this argument that I know of Answ. That Mr. B. hath not proved any thing he should have proved in contradiction to my tenet is before shewed To the argument here made I answer 1. by denying the syllogâ—sm to be right in form for want of putting in the minor those words in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comâ—ort therein and adding in the minor those words but unconceivably better which were not in the major whereby the syllogisâ— is monstrous consisting of â—our or five terms 2. Letting that pass I deny the consequence of the major and aver that though our infants be not visible Churchmembers now yet the Church of Christ is not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comforts therein then it was before Christs comâ—ing but unconceivably better in regard of the comming of Christ in the flesh the gift of the spirit the preaching of the gospel c. 3. That none of the texts speak any thing for Mr. Bs. purpose but rather against it In the first it is said the Covenant of which Christ is mediator is better then that of which Moses or Aaron were mediators and that it is established on better promises the former containing for the most part promises of earâ—hly blessings in Canaan and that promise which was of righteousness was upon the condition of keeping the Law without promise of the
it follows not the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not but it follows the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born so in this point though the arguing be not good the unborn are not actually visible churchmembers therefore the born are not yet this which was my arguing was good By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible churchmembers therefore by the same Covenant of it self without any other cause neither were the born infants actually visible churchmembers and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visible churchmembers To my saying that an entring into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however not as Mr. B prints it though it did in the Jewish he saith much in the compass of a few lines all which is answered before in several sections chiefly 50 51 52 57. But he saith 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question To which I say though it be a question between us yet it is not all the question For both in the Dispute and in all my writings I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible churchmembers and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument he should have proved that visible churchmembership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct which Mr. B. failing to do fails in proving the chief point of his argument But let 's view what he saith Correct pag. 251. You add saith he this proves not the Covenant a pure Gospel-covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish nation I answer if by pure you mean that it is not onely a Gospel covenant but that and more it yeeldeth as much as I need for if it be a Gospel covenant no matter though there be more But if you mean that it is not essentially a Covenant of grace I could heap up abundâ—nce of arguments against you you may find many in Mr. Baâ—â— of the Covenant I add That Covenant wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth himself to be their God is a Covenant of grace for since the fall God entreth himself into no such Covenant with any but in Christ and upon terms of grace But such is this Covenant made with the Israelites and their little ones therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestick or political benefits proper to Abrahams seed inheriting which is set down Heb. 8.10 11 12. out of Jâ—r 31.33 and I say that though there is perhaps an Evangelical promise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse yet Deut. 29.13 14 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was noâ— purely Evangelical or essentially a Gospel Covenant but a political legal national Covenant such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace And I prove it thus 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan the inheritance of it and prosperity therein is not essentially a Gospel Covenant or a pure Gospel Covenant But so doth that Deut. 29.13 14 15. Ergo. The major is manifest For the Gospel Covenant doth noâ— promise those things The minor is plain from the words as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But that was a promise of Canaan as appears from Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 and many passages in Moses his speech Deut. 29.16 21 23 24 27. Deut. 30.2 5 9 10 16.18 and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30 20. 28.11 2. The Covenant and Oath made then was the same which was said to them before Deut. 29.13 But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb Deut. 29.1 Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace as is proved before sect 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses that is not a pure Gospel covenant but a legal Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But such is this Deut. 29.8 29. 30.2 8 10 11 14 16. where the judicial and â—eremonial are meant as well as the moral 4. That Oath and Covâ—nant which had the legal threatnings annexed to it was not a pure Gospel covenant or essentiâ—lly the Covenant of grace Gal. 3.10 Buâ— such was this as appears from Deut. 29.20 21 25. 30.18 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position I omit 1. Because Mr. B. hath not set down the place 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produâ—ed the chief To the first I answer by denying the major and the proof of it and aver that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gospel grace The minor is true but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses as the words Deut. â—9 13 imply that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entred into He adds 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they may live was a Covenant of grace for the Apostle to the Hebrews ch â—0 16 17. so describes it But this was such a Covenant as is written Deut. 30.6 Therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. Besides the exceptions following it should be proved that the promise Deut. 30.6 was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasion to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity 3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righteousness of faith was the Covenant of grace But this is such as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6 7 8. with Deut. 30.12 13 14. But to this you give two sorry answers being resolved to say somewhat 1. It is sâ—oken of the command Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other to think that Gods command is no part of his Covenant That he will be their God is his promise but is that all the Covenant That they shall be his people and so take him for their God and resign themselves to him this is both commanded by him and covenanted by them Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses Deut. 30.12 13 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose is meant of the word of the law the commandments and
God Angels Saints and their highest graces and workings and to things raised above common use dedicated to God and his service but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common if that sense should be admitted contrary to the Scripture use of the word But that is a weak cause that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain Answ. It 's the property of some persons like Thersites in Homer to speak much and to performe little and so it befals Mr. S. here He saith 1. I alledge 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. as the main place for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawfull whereas I alledge it not as Mr. S. saith but to shew that it is not true which Mr. M. said that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses 2. Though I say Mr. Ms. answer to be but a shift yet I shall see it demonstrative if I observe the phrases in the Text and the nature of sanctification But if all should be yeelded that 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. holiness were but a part of the new creation that chastity in heathens is never called sanctification yet this were but a shift to avoid the proof against Mr. Ms. assertion that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses for the chastity of regenerate persons confessed to be termâ—d holiness and a part of sanctification is not taken in a sacred sense for separation from common to sacred uses But of this more may be seen in the first part of this Review sect 12. pag. 108. And as for Mr. Ss. reasoning it is far from demonstrative it being indeed against himself For if v. 1 2. be an exhortation to please God in general and v 3. express one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin and no other sin be named but fornication he doth particularly term abstaining from fornication holiness which is more fuâ—ly confirmed v. 4. where chastity is termed possessing our vessel in holiness and honour opposite to possessing our vessel that is our body in the lust of concupiscence as the Gentiles among whom fornication was frequent and this is v. 7. termed uncleanness and the opposite to it holiness that is chastity And for the other thing that chastity in it self as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification and that sanctity is ascribed to the highest things it is but frivolous For though it be no part of true sanctification yet it may be termed holiness as there be many called Gods who are not the true and everliving God to whom though the term God do properly belong onely yet Magistrates and Angels are sometimes termed Gods without any debasement and though I would not in my pulpit without distinction term Magistrates Angels Gods or call an unlawfull assembly of Idolaters a Church yet who knows not the term Elohim and Ecclesia or Church to be applied to them So that however Mr. S. prattle of his demonstration and of the weakness of my cause and extraordinary shifts yet this is but frivolous talk without any performance He adds But to go on a little further The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints or holy ones at Rome at Corinth Galatia Ephesus c. which when appropriated to persons always signifies a visible Saint So here when he calls children of believing parents holy he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints until they do profess the contrary and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles when he writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints should not be as well understood written onely to the legitimate and those that are not bastards aâ— Rome Corinth c. as well as for them to interpret the same word so in this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to grown men must signifie visible and Evangelical holiness and must be translated Saints but when applied to children it must onely signifie legitimacy that they are not bastards when all men know that magis minus non variant speciem and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament Answ. It is not true that the same term is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches it is not used in the Epistles to the Galatians and Thessalonians and in the titles where it is appropriated to persons signifies a Saint called sanctified in Christ Jesus faithfull which rather note an invisible then a visible Saint and if they do note a visible Saint they note one by calling sanctified in Christ believer in profession none of which are to be ascribed to infants of believers as such nor can be meant 1 Cor. 7.14 where children are termed holy by birth not by calling and are not said to be holy in Christ but in respect of their parents Whence apparent reason is given why the term holy in the titles of the Epistles cannot be translated legitimate in opposition to bastardy but Saints or men who are set apart for God by the love of God and therefore termed beloved of God Rom. 1.7 and the sanctification of the spirit by the Gospel and on the other side why holy 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be translated Saints or visible Saints not for that frivolous conceit of Mr. S. as if they might not be termed Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 for want of age whose gross application of a Logick rule shews he was but a smatterer therein For if visible saintship had been given to elder persons in respect of grown age and denied to infants yet there had been no variation of kind from more or less growth saintship being not the species or kind of such persons but humanity And what he saith that the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament it is so false a speech and so ill becoâ—ming him that said p. 53. he had compared all the places in the New Testament where the word is used that no other excuse but of heedlesness or forgetfulness can acquit him from deceit For besides the places alledged Luke 2.23 2 Pet. 1.18 c. and his own distinctions of federal and inherent holiness together with the holiness intentional meant Rom. 11.16 shew it to be false What he adds By the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers for these that make a profession may have no inward and inherent holiness and a bare profession is not holiness we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and we are often deceived and
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
repent and then to be baptized no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized He adds So Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their Baptism and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundwork gathering thereby that they were not as formerly prophane unclean and outlaries from the Covenant as Ephes. 2.11 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism and those other who were with him yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance which whosoever should do as they did it is without doubt they should be baptized But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46 yeelds no warrant for their Baptism He goes on Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so Covenant favour Tit. 3.5 Answ. It is true this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates but Gods grace and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by sith it is an unknown thing which agrees not with the property of a rule Hence also saith Mr. C. by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Son and Spirit even into the Covenant name of grace whereby he is known and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity to which every baptized person prove he elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing and the name of the Father Son and Spirit the Covenant name of grace are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases if this be his meaning that every person rightly baptized whether he be elect or reprobate is sealed by God that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace I deny it if onely that he professeth his communion to be with them I grant it but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants who make no such profession intitles them to Baptism Again saith he That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such it is all but Covenant grace and blessing Answ. Be it so yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants I see not Of old saith Mr. C. the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17.7 8 9. Deut. 30.6 and so now that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants scil walk before me c. but yet that was then appliable I will be their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause I do not yet conceive the rule of Logick I have learned is that the cause is before the effect Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means though it might suffice for Circumcision it doth not for Baptism nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision as is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 2 3. Yet again In a word the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment but covenant this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it Answ. If Baptism be a seal it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant but the profession of the baptized and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it Yet more It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it Ephes. 5.25.26 and why shall not the external interest in the covenant have chief influence into the external interest as well of the application of the initiatory seal Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means nor what is the external interest in the Covenant the word Ephes. 5.25 26. Is meant of the word preached which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants Once more By external interest in the Covenant persons so interested come to have external interest at least to the final causes of Baptism as Covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christ resurrection c. Tit. 3 8. and 1. Cor 12.12 13. 1. Pet. 3.21 And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it whether they are adult or infants Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant external interest in the final causes of Baptism are notions I understand not 2. Covenant mercy and blessing the spirit Christs resurrection are not final cause of Baptism for then when the end of Baptism is attained they should be effects of Baptism for the end in intention is the effect in execution But this is too absurd 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further is another new notion I understand not 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth yet the consequence is to be denied no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism but that which is according to the institution Matth. 28.19 discipleship or profession of faith To the 8th Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties as Mr. means C. unless he understand by Christ the principal and the elect and true believers the less principal as Gal. 3.16 and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical did belong to many of the Israelites who made no good use thereof The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant and the initial seal in its generical nature is answered here sect 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect 50 c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19 under the term nation is shewed there and in the second part of this Review sect 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect 9. may be granted though Acts 2.38 39. make nothing for it Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ— Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whâ—n I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâ—ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which â—ate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inâ—â—pid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism â—is most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâ—e a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châ—ef article was that they should shake off every yoâ—e and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâ—e playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâ—h That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied
of Command or example have gâ—eat force against Lutherans for as much as they use that principle every where that the â—ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there is to be rejected yet it is of no force against Catholicks For altâ—ough we find no command expresly that we should baptize infants yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed above and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us then Scripture for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write But that this is an Apostolick tradition wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture to wit from the testimonies of the ancient Church The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. § 24. not § 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be that the Scripture onely proves infant Baptism by that sense of it which is not manifest but by the tradition and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. not tom 7. as Mr. B. directs I know none such but tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l 5. c. 9. § 32. But I am not thereby satisfied that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken Mr. B. proceds Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his wordâ— in a later edition How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly yea is not that Scripture proof and plain proof which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the same way he is sure against you For Dr. Taylour if you have read all his books I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants having so much of the body of Popery in them Mr. Youngs words if they be his are against you in the thing you cite them for There are testimonia minùs aperta and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto praemissis quae sunt minùs aperta directâ— pro conclusione My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee bâ—tter repressed then thus if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words And if M. Bedford have corrected his words I wish it have not been fâ—r the cause sake against his conscience If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wiâ—h the same breath I know no wrong to my self done by alleging Dr. Field Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly yet is not that Scripture proof nor plain proof for infant Baptism any more then infant Communion which shews plainly from Scripture Pauls conclusion of original sin Rom 5.12 and Christs Joh. 3.5 which Ancients took falsly for grouâ—ds reasons and causes of the necessity oâ— infant Baptism as they did Joh. 6.53 of infant Communion yet took the use to bee a custome â—f the Church countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning is plain from his words and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England by thâ— words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Baâ—tism and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book Catechism art 27. of the Church of England And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture I have not read all Dr. Taylors works nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants Dr. Youngs words are much for me 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism 2. Thâ—t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church especially when he saith we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him sith Dr. Young denies that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain â—estimonies the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed nor men of reason and conscience satisfied I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words I go on Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism pag. 98. saith thus About the same time the 3d. Century or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour He therefore in his 7th ch of Eccles. Hierarch Edit Morel p. 233. proposeth the question as that which may seem to prophane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of Baptism concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximuâ— his scholiast adding to the same head also that others in their stead pâ—onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again our Divine guides i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffâ— of prophane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time wherein that Author wrote which must needs be in the 4th Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more ancient and so to be placed in this 3d. age Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiquiâ—y of
the thing is revealed added to it as Matth. 11.25 27. 16.17 Luk. 10.21 22. John 12.38 1 Cor. 2.10 14 30. Eph. 3.5 Phil. 3.15 1 Pet. 1.12 and this must needs be the meaning the words before being whereas before he was zealous of the Law against the Christian profession when it pleased God who separated me from my mothers womb and called me by his grace to reveal his son in him or as Beza annot in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est mihi to me which plainly shews that this revelation was to him when he was called which is called the revelation of Jesus Christ to him v. 12. and made the proof of his calling to bee an Apostle not of men neither by man but by Jesus Christ v. 1. and the reason why he preached without conferring with the Apostles And thus doth Perkins com on Gal. 1.16 rightly explain it to reveal his son in me or to me and to express the manner or form of his calling or conversion and expounds it thus to teach me the doctrine of the redemption of mankinde by Jesus Christ and the words to preach Christ among the Gentiles the end of his vocation As for that which the Dr. desires me now to take notice of I do though I think it needless sith the tautology I conceived to follow on the Drs. exposition is not in the object but in the act revealing his son by the Apostle being no other then his preaching which makes the speech nugatory it pleased God to preach his son by me that I might preach As for the place of 2 Pet. 1.5 sith the Dr. makes no more answer I need make no more reply and I still aver that all the places which I brought out of the N. T. have the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to as a signe of the Daâ—ive case To the places out of the Greek of the old Testament he tels me that three onely places in the whole Old T. would never infer that so it must bee in the New which I grant and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it wust be here which is also granted except a necessity of a more fair easie and congruous sense then any other rendering these three will be of no avail to me But this is not yeelded For the two first Deut. 28.60 2 Kings 5.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vulg adhaerebit tibi semini tuo being used constantly in the N. T. with a Dative Luk. 10.11 and 15.15 Acts 5.13 8.29 9.26 10.28 17.34 Rom. 12.9 1 Cor. 6.16 17 c. it is a strong presumption that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant and onely the signe of the Dative case And the other place Psal. 68.18 compared with Eph. 4.8 hath some force it being probable that the Apostle expressed what the LXX meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it was not of this last onely but of all together I said I took them to be more then enough to refute the Drs. speech that the notion wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to which is a signe of the Dative case is never found once to belong to it in the N. T. nor can with any tollerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it SECT XCIV It is shewed that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16 for his sense of the fore-part of v. 14. Nor will his sense of Holy for Baptized agree with the Apostles argument though his sense of the forepart of the v. were granted THe Dr. adds My third proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt by comparing it with the reason subjoyned For what knowest thou O wife whether thou shalt save thy husband or how knowest thou O man whether thou shalt thy wife He comes next to examine and hath many exceptions against it all which without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to lie Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and Baptism by the believing wife therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever in case the unbeliever be willing to stay v. 13. for this reason v. 16. Because whath hath been so oft may very probably be hoped again and consequently upon the premimises the believer hath ground to hope that she may in time gain the husband to the faith and that being so fair a reward in her view the saving or rescuing him from infidelity to Christ may well inforce the counsel of the Apostle not to depart from him as long as without sin she is permitted to stay By which it appears that this v. 16. is not a bare evplanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend but an application of the argument formerly proposed but now more signally brought home to them under the form of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what by this meanes to re-inforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelity If the Reader will but observe what is thus visible he will want no more help to get out of the intricacies and roils which Mr. T. hath here spread for him in this matter which is in it self so manifest as nothing can be added to it if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self Ans. The Dr. seems to be much crest-faâ—n who having said his exposition appeared most irrefragably by v. 16. wherin he said the fore-part of v. 14. was further explained When four plain reasons were urged against this he replies to none but onely calls them intricacies and toils and saith my exceptions depend on this that v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. whereas my reasons prove it to be neither an explanation nor an application of the argument formerly proposed v. 14. but another argument not to prove the lawfulness of the believers continuance with the believer as v. 14. but either as a motive to bring them to what he had concluded lawfull or to inforce what he had said v. 15. And for what the Dr. saith that v. 16. the argument formerly proposed v. 14. is more signally brought home to them it is not true even according to the Drs. own paraphrase For the Drs. paraphrase of v. 14. as if therein a frequâ—ncy of the conversion of unbelievers yoke fellows by the believer were well known as matter of ordinary observation and so hopefull in the case of the present doubters brings home the argument more signally then a mention oâ— it as possible doubtfully expressed as a contingent that might be or not be But I am willing the Reader should hear us both and then judge I
66. denies that he made the future hopes any part of the sense of hath been sanctified in all these paraphrases he sets down nothing but the future hopes which are no part of the sense by his own confession but as he imagines the rational importance the score ground or consideration of admitting children to Baptism And not onely so but adds more then he makes the rational importance of the term hath been sanctified in his paraphrase as that by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably will and ought to be brought up in the faith and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents reasonably presumes they will None of which he doth so much as pretend to be the rational importance of hath been sanctified but adds them of his own and with like fancying might have added the Church doth reasonably presume they will be Teachers Officers in the Church Martyrs and what else they could wish them to be I refer it to any sober ingenious Scholler to judge whether such kind of paraphrasing especially when an argument is drawn from it as the chief if not onely piâ—lar of the cause be tollerable On the other side that the Dr. did make the Apostles arguing otherwise when he refuted the answer to his argument hence in his Letter qu. 4. § 82. appears by his words there p. 257. which I cited Review par 2. pag. 322. and were those whence I gathered the Drs. framing the Apostles argument when he said The invalidity of this answer will be discerned First by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place for the coâ—habiting of the believing wife with the unbelieving husband c. because the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified by the believing wife or else were your children unclean but now are they holy that must needs be this unless there were some hope that the co-habiting of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to the faith 't would certainly follow that their children were unclean now putting to it that which he in his paraphrases § 31. of his 4 th qu. in his Letter where he expresseth hath been sanctified thus The unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and unclean by not admitted to Baptism and holy by admitted to Baptism and your children by the young children of Christians whereof was an unbeliever and I appeale to any that shall compare my words in the 2d part of this Review sect 26. p. 331. where I make this the Apostles arguing as the Dr. expounds it If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith diligence and conversation of the believing party that then was then the children of you who are believers but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism in infancy but now that is upon this score that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith conversation and diligence of the believer they have been admitted to Baptism with the Drs. premised arguings and paraphrase in his Letter qu. 4. § 31 82. and here whether I have not rightly set down the Apostles argument as the Dr. expounds him and the Dr. hath not changed here his frame of the Apostles argument to hide the deformity of it and whether there be any truth in it that I have not understood his paraphrase that I have substituted another way of arguing in his name in stead of it or have combated with the shadow of my own creating and whether these propositions the children of a believing yoke fellow who is joyned to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism if some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith The children of a believer by an unbelieving yoke fellow have been admitted to Christian Baptism by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith are not included in the Apostles argument according to the tenour of his reasoning conceived by the Dr. and whether there be any shew of connexion in the consequence of the Apostle as the Dr. expounds it and whether he hath not shifted in stead of answering and imputed fiction to me that he might hide his own collusion SECT XCV Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled THe Dr. next pretends to vindicate his reasons for his interpretation from my exceptions My first reason saith he is Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy noting a relative holiness a setting apart to God and the lowest degree of that imaginable being the initiating into the Church by Baptism this must in reason be here noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy as all visible professors Ezr. 9.2 are the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy To this he answers that it being all granted confirms not the Drs. exposition because 't is no good argument a genere ad speciem affirmativè and because infants are not visible professors But sure when the species is such that he that hath not that hath not any part of the genus the argument will thus hold very irrefragably Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of Officers in the Church and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the Ministery will not then the argument hold He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him therefore sure he is a Deacon Thus sure it is in this matter the relative holiness belongs to no person that is not baptized Baptism is the lowest degree of it and all superiour degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that therefore if the infant children be holy the infant children are baptized So again Baptism is the lowest degree of visible Profession therefore if these that are said to be holy are visible Professors then sure they are baptized And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason Answ. That there is no force to avoid my exception in this reply may appear 1. That he saith nothing to what I said p. 333. of the 2d part of the Review that the term holy seed Ezr. 9.2 hath a far different notion as I shew in this Review Antipaed par 1. sect 13 25. from what the Dr. imagines 2. Nor doth he here or any where else prove infants to be visible professors 3. Nor doth he prove Baptism to be the lowest degree of visible profession 4. Nor doth the Dr. prove or can prove that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 must be meant of a relative holiness of setting apart to God in the Christian visible Church short of real saving holiness The opinion of matrimonial holiness I assert with many more is not yet refuted They who after Tertullian interpret it of
of Abraham onely or Moses onely or both or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand I know not except by a call he meaneth circumcising them And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made or entred members 7. And if so whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity or that which was proper to converted proselyted members or some call common to both and what thâ—t was When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered then it may be worth labour to answer him Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise or that a Church could not be without that promise or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan which was as essential to that Covenant as the other they being both but integral parts of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole And for the essence of a Church which consists in the association or union of the members it is not given by a Covenâ—nt of God promising what he will be to them and they to him for the future for that assures them onely of continuance doth not give their present essence but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others and unites or incorporates them together which I call as usually Divines do the Church call agreeably to the Scripture Rom 9.24 25 26. 1 Cor. 1.2 24. c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit and is still the same or outward and was thoâ—gh by various acts of his providence yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith as in the Christian Church when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church But the authority and power of Rulers who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth which was called the congregation or Church of Israel in which the infants were included and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning by my instances which he sets down that the way means or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish For the Christian Church outward call was onely according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ and not by any coercive power of Rulers whereas the Jewish was otherwise Mr. B. proceeds In the mean time briefly thus I answer 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased and so are the ceremonies built thereon 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people If they heartily consent it may be done onely the World is taken into this Covenant with them and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded that exclude not themselves 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease when yet the Church ceased not 4. And for the Ministerial call 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed yet the effect ceased not Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call then what sort is that And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches this is that he drives at God then called by Magistrates but now by Ministers And secondly then he called all the Nation in one day but now he calls heâ—e one and there one Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive that Mr. B. might have understood or rather did understand me well enough that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call which he could learn by my speeches that drive at it But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding what he could not well answer he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain But for what he saiâ—h that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people he therein shews two mistakes 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant as if God could not make a Covenant without it which is false the Covenant Gen. 9.9 10. with Phinehas Numb 25.12 13. with the Rechabites Jer. â—5 19 being without it 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers which implies either the Covenant to be all onâ— with an offer or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent as Mr. B. means But Mr. B. proceeds thus Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words 1. What if all this were true is there the least colour for the consequence from hence It is as good a consequence to say That when God judged Israel by Debora a woman which before was judged by men that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered Oâ— when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer and then another first a man and then a child and then a woman doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered If first a man and then a child and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner or to any imployment or company doth this change the nature of the company or imployment What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministery and a Presbytery another and the people a third is not the Ministerial work and office still the same What if a Magistrate convert one man now and a Minister another and a woman a third doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the
same What a powerfull argument is here for a man to venture upon to unchurch all the infants in the world The efficient cause enters not the essence or if it did yet not every less principal inferiour cause such as the Messenger or Minister of our call is If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the Charter of Church membership then you had said something else you say nothing to the purpose Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence nature or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not yet what I was to prove that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts and consequently of infants being included is altâ—red might be and indeed is firmly concluded from thence For as Alsted suppl Chamier de naturae Eccl. ch 2. § 3. The matter of the Church are men called Mat. 20.16 The form is the call it self and that is either simple that is either externâ—l onely or internal onely or conjunct that is external and internal together § 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit the outward in which he calls outwardly by the ministery of the Church And this is the call of the Church which as it is the action of God calling is in God himself but as it is received of the Church is it's form Or as Ames med Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church is calling whence also it receives it's name and definition For the Church is a company of men called 1 Cor. 1.24 with 10.32 And Cameron in his praeiect of the Church in his definition of the Church makes it to be a society of men called by the ministery of the word and saith called and believers are the same in Scripture Mr. B. confes of Faith pag. 284. The Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium If then infants be not called by the word which is the onely way of calling into the Christian visible Church nor believers then they are no part of the visible Church Christian and consequently the Church constitution is altered and the Law of visible church membership of infants if there were such a Law is repealed And this argument is powerfull enough if there were no more to venture upon to unchurch though I like not the expression all the infants of the world that is to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects doth not invalidate the consequence For the consequence is not grounded on this onely that the Magistrate called then and the Minister now then all together now here one and there another but on this the Magistrate did it then by his authority though without perswading one after another but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word teaching and perswading one after another as the word takes and not by any commanding power or outward force or legislative or coercive vertue And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect because if none be called but those that receive the word and none be members of the Church but the called and infants be uncapable thereof they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into as his own words shew as if I had argued onely from the different persons and their different office and not also from the different way manner or sort of call whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call and so I might answer them all negatively and graâ—t what he would have me and yet my proof stands good And for what he saith that the â—fficient cause enters not the essence I find to the contrary in Keckerm syst log l. 1. par 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents the notion of distinction or the difference is taken from the subject efficient end and object Yet this if true were nothing against me who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church no nor of the existence though the Apostles woâ—ds Rom. 10.14 speak near to it But this is that which I hold no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian but who is called by the outward preaching of the word who ever be the Messenger or Minister of the call and sith infants are not so called they are not members of the visible Church Christian. Mr. B. adds 2. I utterly deny that there is any more truth in the Antecedent then in the consequent God hath not altered the nature of the call in any substantial point but in meer circumstances Answ. What Mr. B. means by the nature of the call and what points he makes in the call substantial what near circumstances is not easie to tell but that God hath so altered the Jewish Châ—rch call as to exclude infants from the Christian visible Church is so apparent that I know not how to conceive of the denial of it but as a fruit of oppositeness without reason For all the way that John Baptist Christ the Apostles and other teachers took and appointed to be taken for gathering the Christian visible Church was by preaching the Gospel to all that would hear it to make them disciples or believers and so by baptism to joyn them to the Church But that the Jewish Church call was different is apparent in that there were no such teachers sent out to unite them but that by the authority of the Magistrates whether houshold or national they were imbodied Rightly saith Mr. Hudson vindic ch 4. sect 5. pag. 94. Gods method of conveying Church-priviledges used in the national Church of the Jews being in populo Israelitico must needs differ from the method in populo Catholico And the same is true of Gods call But what need we any other to shew the proper call of the Christian Church visible then Mr. B. himself in his Saints Everlasting rest part 2. ch 6. sect 1. Edit 1. pag. 223 224. he is so ample and his words so plain that I think if there were no more to shew his perverse stiffness in this thing it were enough I will transcribe some passages Consider in what way Christ spreads his Gospel to bring men in from the world into his Church from Paganism Turcism or Judaism to Christianity he never gave the sword any such Commission he never levied an army to advance his dominion nor sent forth his followers as so many Commanders to subdue the Nations to him by force and spare none that will not become Christians He will have none but those that voluntarily list themselves under him He sent out Ministers and not Magistrates or Commanders to
good did yet appear But in your 3d. you fly off again and eat your own words and jumble things in much confusion so that I now return again to my former thoughts For you that expresly say and unsay and contradict your self are not likely to be brought to a candid management or fair issue of the Dispute You 'l sure think it no great matter to be driven to a self contradiction which with others is to lose the Cause who so easily and expresly run it upon it your self Answ. It was a call sufficient to Mr. B. to do what I requested in my first Letter in that a brother and fellow servant as he takes me to be desired it of him If he love the truth as he saith he should be willing to let us know his Scriptures he alledgeth for that which he asserts as a truth If he conceive himself imperfect knowing but in part why should he not be jealous of his own opinion especially resting on remote consequences rather then violently oppose mine which his own acknowledgements do make plainly agreeing with the New Testament If I were a sophistical adversary yet I should think it were meet Mr. B. should debate that with me which he hath so clamourously and confidently opposed me in What better answer I need make to what is said then I have done so far as I have gone which is if not the greatest part yet the chiefest and indeed for Scripture Texts all that requires an answer I see not I have set down almost all my Antagonists words in Mr. Bs. book at least all that is argumentative and pertinent with my answers distinctly fully and plainly in the two foregoing Parts of this Review And what way any man could take more candid and agreeing to Logick rules then I have gone in my answers is yet to me undiscernable Mr. Firmin in his Separation examined pag. 31. saith thus I can easily discern Mr. Tombes to dispute more like a Sophister then a Christian that did desire to see truth and he cites the words of Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 147. which I have answered so fully in my Apology pag. 78 79. and shewed that very way which Mr. M. chargeth me with to be as contrary to sophistical disputing as light is to darkness that I had thought impudence it self would not have charged me with that in a book printed six years after the Edition of my Apology Mr. Simon Ford in his Epistle Dedicatory to his frivolous scribbled Dialogue chargeth me with railing down rather then disputing even in that which as he sets it down hath no shew of reviling but a plain calling a straw a straw And for my heavy censure I still profess I know not how to conceive more favourably of Paedobaptists but wish they would search their own hearts impartially Mr. Gataker in his letter printed by Mr. B. to whom it was written doubts in part it to be my disposition to braze my forehead not regarding at all what men deem or say of me so I may seem to say somewhat and have the last word then which a more unrighteous conceit could hardly have been entertained by him Mr. Bs. printing it together with other passages makes me almost hopeless of ever meeting with any just or candid dealing from Paedobaptists Mr. B. here saith I jumble things in much confâ—sion that I contradict my self eat my own words none of which is true But he takes on him to prove it thus In your 2 d. you say I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept then visible Churcâ—-members that is of the congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing c. In your 3 d. you say For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai and Deut 29. wherein Israel avouched God and a precept of Circumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people and requiring of them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Churchmembership or precept for parenâ—s or others concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision as in your book of Bapt. you assert Before there was no Law or Ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so but not such as I assert in my book And if I should shew you never so many you may reply they are not such as I assert in my book and waste the time in that trial when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book For this is but to lead us about to trifling Answ. 1. There is not a shadow of self contradiction in the latter words to the former For though the latter acknowledge promises to Israel yet not that by them they were visible Churchmembers and Laws and Ordinances yet not determining they should be visible Churchmembers Had Mr. B. heeded my words he had forborn this accusation if he were not bent to find a knot in a bulrush 2. If I should answer as he forebodes I should answer rightly And it is certain that if Mr. B. should bring never so many promises and not shew that they made infants visible Churchmembers as he asserts in his book he would waste time and lead us about to trifling and therefore it is just I should tie him to that and his excepting against my so doing would shew his wrangling and will be taken for a losing of his cause But I am resolved to follow him even in his vagaries and to examine whether it be true which he saith that I jumble things in much confusion To make any clear work saith Mr. B. upon the things in question we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly many of which you too much confound The first question in order fit to be resolved is whether infants before Christs incarnation were Churchmembers or not you grant they were and therefore this is past dispute with us The 2 d. Qu. and tho first unresolved is what Church it is that infants were members of This you give me occasion to take in the way because you twice explain your meaning when you confess them Churchmembers by an i. e. of the congregation of Israel By which you seem to imply two things First that none but the infants of the congregation of Israel were Churchmembers Secondly that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel The 3 d. Qu. is What it is that gives the Israelites that denomination of the Congregation of Israel of which infants were