to admit him except his profession seem to be serious and so sincers for who durst admit him if we knew he came but in jest or to make a scorn of Christ and Baptism So that to be a member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Therefore even Cardinal Cusanus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs And our Divines generally make the unsound hypocrites to be but to the Church as a wooden leg to the body or at the best as the hair and nails c. and as the straw and chaff to the corn And so doth Bellarmine himself and even many other whom he citeth of the Papists Aquinas Petr. a soto Joh. de Turrecremata Hugo Alex Alensis Canus And when Bellarmine feigneth Calvin and others to make two militant Churches our Divines reject it as a calumny and manifest fiction and say that the Church is not divided into two sorts but it is a two fold respect of one and the same Church one as to the internal essence the other aâ— to the external manner of existing as Ames speaks Answ. Though much of this passage be yeelded by me yet I reject those speeches because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible to be a visible member of the Church is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called the invisible of the true mystical body of Christ For to be a visible member of the Christian Church is not all one as to seem to be of the invisible Church For 1. a person may be of the visible Church according to Mr. B. who lives alone in America and therefore seems to no man to be of the invisible Church no man knoweth or judgeth probably or certainly him to be of Christs mystical body 2. A person may seem to be of the invisible Church and yet not be of the visible as an Indian while a Christian preacheth who yet professeth not Christ yet seems by his gestures to be affected with it and sundry others Therefore it is necessary to be a visible Churchmember that his profession be visible that is be discernable to mens understanding through the sensibility of it 3. To some a person may seem to be of the invisible Church to others not is he of the visible Church or not or are both true and if noâ— how shall we know which is true which not 4. To seem to be of 〈◊〉 invisible Church is but accidental to the visibility of a Churchmember though he should seem to none to be of the invisible Church yea though through mens ignorance or uncharitableness the person should seem to be a reprobate or hypocrite yet he might be nevertheleless a visible Christian and so a churchmember of the catholick visible which Mr. B. avoucheth Mr. Bs. reasons here go upon a gross mistake as if it were all one to be a visible churchmember and to be received or admitted as a visible churchmember and that a person were denominated visible from what men apprehend or what seems to them whereas the denomination is as Ames saith truly in the place meant by Mr. B. from the external form or manner of existing Though a person be not to be received as a visible member of the Church because he seems not to be found yet he may be a visible churchmember Nor is he such because they pass a judgement on him but because his profession is such as might shew him to be a Christian if any did observe it or would candidly interpret it But how far Mr. B. errs from the true understanding of the main point of his book what it is to be a visible churchmember sometimes making it the same with a seeming to be of the mystical body of Christ sometimes a right to a benefit and how indistinctly he speaks of this thing which if he had minded any exact disquisition of truth he should in the beginning of his Dispute have first cleared is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 17. at large pag. 228 c. In this part sect 55 c. And for want of observing this his mistake I judge many learned men and others have been misled by him He saith Again you must understand that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a member of any particular or political body or society as Rome would have it And to be a visible member doth not necessarily import that he is actually knowne to bee a member for hee may live among the blinde that cannot see that which is visible But that he is one so qualified as that hee ought to bee esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it Answ. 1. This passage doth overthrow Mr. Bs. definition of a visible Churchmember which is that he is one that seems to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church Now he that seems such is actually known or discerned to be such that seems so which is thought to be so Videtur quod sic videtur quod non in the Schools are expressâ—ons of a mans opinion but according to Mr. B. to be a visible church-member doth not necessarily import he is actually known or discerned therefore he may be a visible churchmember who doth not seem to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church and then the definition is not right as not agreeing to every thing defined 2. His speeches He may live among the blind who cannot see that which is visible that he is one qualified so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ a man living alone in America hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there be none to discern it do plainly intimate that visible churchmembership is constituted by some qualification which is visible so that he ought thereupon to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore visible churchmembership is from some qualification sensible and is before the esteem in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ and though such esteem should not follow yet the person is a visible churchmember and therefore Mr. B. doth most unskilfully define a visible churchmember to be one that seems or is esteemed to be of the invisible Church For though this be and ought to be a consequent upon the other yet it is not the same but as I have shewed even according
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
taking in of a person into an Office Army or Family or the like to perform the work enjoy the benefit profit c. of such an Officer Member c. And it is usually done by some Officer to whom that business is committed and the person upon his admission and by vertue of it takes his place work benefit or what else he is admitted to as his right and due But I know no such thing in the baptizing of infants Indeed by Baptism regularly a man is admitted to the Communion of the Church in prayer hearing receiving the Lords Supper and such other acts of Christian Communion as belong to visible Church-members But an infant by Baptism is not admitted to these Prayer and hearing are in some sort allowed to unbaptized persons and they are admitted to them who are infidels when infants baptized are sent away as uncapable of them and disturbers by their crying and playing The Lords Supper they are not admitted to by their Baptism till they themselves profess as Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists agree The being name repute of Churâ—h-members is antecedent to Baptism and therefore they are not admitted to it by Baptism I must confess therefore I do not well know what this admission of infants iâ— which is by Baptism and I think the proposition in Mr. Bs. argument to be void of truth or sense if it be not thus construed All that ought to be admitted visible church-members are baptized or which is all one ordinarily ought to be baptized afore they are admitted unless the admission and baptism be one and the same and then the speech is an inept tautologie as if he had said All visible church members that ought to be baptized ordinarily ought to be baptized So that now Mr. B. may see some reason of my demur about his major proposition which though it were as plain as he well knew how to express himself yet there is so much ambiguity in it that in the sense which the words in any good construction will bear it is to be denied But if he understand it in the later sense the Syllogism is nugatory the minor and the conclusion being the same Nevertheless as in the Dispute I let the major pass so I shall do in this answer onely taking notice of some things in his proof of it and insist upon my denial of the minor The first argument of Mr. B. to prove admission into the visible Church is to be by Baptism I approve and thence conclude against infant Baptism thus If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of admitting any by Baptism as visible members but believerâ— by profession then all that must be admitted visible members ordinarily by Baptism must be believâ—rs by profession But since Baptism was instituted or established we have no precept or example in Scriâ—ture of admitting any aâ— visible members by Baptism but believers by profession Ergo all that must be admitted visible members must be believers by profession I know not what in shew of reason can be said to this For what man yet Mr. B. and Paedobaptists dare dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it from a way that hath full current of both yet they that will admit infants into the visible Church by Baptism do so If he say there 's precept before I answer his own major requires precept or example since Christ ordained Baptism and therefore that shift avoids not the retortion of his argument To what he replies to this argument in his Praefestin morator sect 16. besides what I have said in the 2d part of this Review sect 4. pag. 66.67 there is enough in the same book sect 10 11 12 c. to manifest that infants are not in any Scripture disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28.19 Nevertheless I find Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier de natura Ecclesiae cap. 7. § 4. thus writing Baptismus admittit in Ecclesiam particularem sed in Ecclesiam catholicam potest aliquis admitti sine baptismo quia hanc ad rem sufficit vera fides And whereas Mr. Ball in his reply to the answer of the New-Ergland Elders about the nine positions pag. 60. had said Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof Mr. Allin rejoyns in his Defence pag. 163. Baptism doth not admit actually into the Church and your own expression secrety implieth as much when you say Baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ If baptism be the seal of our admission then there is admission thereunto before baptism but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular congregations â—an any be admitted into a Charch that whole Church being ignorant thereof Fulwood serm of the Church c. p 14. The children of believers born in the Church are not though virtual actual members of the visible Church before Baptism This I produce to shew the uncertainty among Paedobaptists about admission into the Church by baptism and membership before Baptism Like also what Mr. B. saith in his 2d arg To be above ordinances is to be above obedience to God and so Gods And when he saith in his 3d. The nature and end of baptism is to be Christs listing engaging sign it is a good argument to prove that infant baptism hath not the nature and end of baptism â—ith it is not Christs that is according to his appointment listing engaging sign the infant neither lists nor engageth himself by it as Christ appointed And when he saith If it be the use of baptism to engraff and enter us into the body or Church 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ as Rom. 6.3 then sure it must be used at our engraffing and entrance it rather follows it is before sith the means is to be before the end in execution To what he saith about Church-members Disciples Christians enough hath been said in the 2d part of this Review sect 10. c. In his 6th argument having formed an argument from Ephes. 5.26 he saith of me Mr. T. in his Exercit. objecteth 1. That then the thief on the cross c. were no church members Answ. It followes not from he that is baptized shall be saved that therefore he that is not baptized shall not be saved so here for the former speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu it will follow that it is a duty to baptize all members where it may be done but not that it shall certainly come to pass Refut What I said Exercit. pag. 21. of that text Ephes. 5.27 was not an objection against what Mr. B. would evince from the text but in answer to an argument urged for infant baptism from that text by a London Minister in a conference anno 1643. Which
patiently bear his falshoods wherein he accuseth the truth and servants of the living God and by shewing him his errours and evil dealing have endeavoured to acquit my self as his faithful brother as was meet however he hath been or shall be towards me affected He adds after Sir if you have any thing of moment to say in reply to these which you have not yet in your writings brought forth I shall bee willing to consider of it But if you have not I pray you tell me so in two words and spare the rest of your pains as for me and trouble mee no more with matters of this nature For truly I have no sufficient vacancy from greater works Yea I am constrained to forbear much greater then these R. B. After this he tels me That whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley in which I refuted by many arguments infants visible Churchmembership I must be either mutable or hypocritical if I deny such a law and ordinance which I took on me then to refute and desires a Copy of that Sermon that hee may shew the sad mistakes and vanity of those my arguments To which I answer 1. I refuted Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church-membership as a thing pretended not as a thing real and so am neither mutable nor hypocritical in denying such a law 2. I have no delight in Mr. Bs. writings of this subject unless there were more ingenuity and solidity in them then I yet finde and therefore am willing to gratifie him with no more of my manuscripts in this kinde 3. As for the Copy of my Sermon he hath the matter of it with enlargement in the 50 51 and 52. Section of this Book which when he answers fragili querens illidere dentem offendet solido 4. What I had more to say then I have printed he may perceive by my Books and however Mr. B. conceives yet I conceive that the reformation or confirmation of infant Baptism is a matter of as great moment as the things Mr. B. is intentive on However hee might have answered my Letter without any of this trouble hee hath put himself to But sith hee chose this way I have thought it necessary to make this reply and so to go on to the examining the rest of his Book not yet examined by me at large though there be little which is not answered in this and other parts before SECT LXIIII. My Answer in the Dispute and Sermon to the argument of Mr. B. of Baptism part 1. ch 6. about the non-repeal of infants Churchmembership because neither in justice nor mercy is vindicated PLain Scripture proof c. part 1. ch 6. Mr B. speaks thus My first argument is this If God have repealed this ordinance and revoked this mercifull gift of infants Churchmembership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for their hurt therefore he hath not at all repealed it I will hide nothing from you that Mr. T. hath said against this argument either in our publick Dispute or in his Sermon The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major proposition he never offered to deny nor indeed is there any ground to deny it It must needs be for the good or hurt of infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice For God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency Answ. In the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. and the Sermon shortly after I did not understand Mr. Bs. opinion as I do now nor did afore the writing of his last Letter conceive of his law and ordinance of visible Churchmembership what it was and where it was to be found nor do I yet conceive clearly what the benefit and priviledge is to infants by their visible Churchmembership which he asserts And therefore if I gave not so clear an answer to this argument as were requisite it is to be imputed partly to the unacquaintedness with it at that time partly to Mr. Bs. artifice who carried himself close in the Dispute for indirect advantage and still is unwilling to shew his mind fully though desired by me in the Letter before set down What is his opinion about the law unrepealed is considered before what he imagines are the priviledges and benefit of his infants visible Churchmembers seems to be intimated in these passages of his Letter in the 4th qu. set down here sect 55. when he saith I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him and to be separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope In another passage set down Sect. 56. To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeth 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious a Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members As also a right to my station in the body and to the inseparable benefits thereof Which how false they are is in part shewed above He likewise expresseth the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian as if it were a casting out excommunicating by a punitive execution of a curse or law on them ch 5. part 1. of plain Scripture proof c. wherein how he is mistaken is shewed above These things being premised I say that if Mr. B. understand by mercy remunerative mercy and by justice punitive justice as he seems to do I deny the major And to his reasons I answer 1. Simply and of it self the nonâ—visible Churchmembership of infants imports neither hurt nor good to them But by accident in that their visible Church-membership in the Church of the Hebrews obliged them to Circumcision and the yoke of the Law so it imports hurt to them 2. If it did import hurt or good to them yet it might be neither by an act of remunerative mercy nor punitive justice that they are left out oâ— the Church but by an act of meer Soveraignty as it is in election and reprobation and in the disposing of the Gospel where God plâ—aseth 3. God hath his ends in this alteration as to shew his freeness his intent to have his visible Church more spiritual then the Jewish c. though not to shew his
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
children were broken off from the invisible Church in which the elect Jewes and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion taking it as he doth for ingraffing into the visible Church For saith he there is this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jewes as natural branches and the engraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jewes good and bad were called branches now onely believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their children are ingraffed into that root Which is enough to shew that the Gentiles were not ingraffed into the root or tree as the Jews by natural descent but by calling of the Gospel and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not ingraffed but so many as are called The ingraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream and is overthrown by this that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling not national but Congregational by voluntary Covenant nor can the Churches called Independent hold this which Master Sidenham and Master Cobbet and others of their way hold that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is sutable to that of the Jewes as being in their stead but they must hold a national Church whiâ—h quite overturns the frame of their Churches and the Reformation they contend for To his second argument the some that were broken off might be parents and children or parents and not children or children and not parents and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin or their parents according to Gods good pleasure onely But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter in the first part of this Review sect 4 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted understood of ingraffing into the Church invisible not into the visible To the fourth that the fatness of the Olive should note priviledges and outward advantages such as this that the child should be visible Churchmember with the father in the Christian Church or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal vertue to convey such Church priviledge or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17 is a meer fancy nor is there any thing Ephes. 3.6 or any where else in Scripture for it To the objection That now believers are onely branches Abraham onely the roote and therefore the argument holds not If the parent be holy so is the childe being understood of other then Abraham and his seed hee answers That yet the branches well ingraffed become natural branches and receive as much from the roote as those which grew naturally on it so Gentile believers must have the same priviledge and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may bee termed immediate rootes But hee doth not shew that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughes of trees rootes to lesser neither dare hee say the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root Rom. 11.16 and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant because the Apostle saith if the roote bee holy so are the branches because Abraham onely is the roote there As for Mr. Bls. saying I value it not it being without Scripture It 's sufficient for present to shew the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofes I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Churchmembership and Baptism was brought to this issue Whether the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 into the Olive tree be meant of joyning a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon so that none are ingraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments The first is That act of ingraffing to the Church which is made Gods act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency is and can be no other ingraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election But such is the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 as appears from v. 23. Ergo. Mr. Sydenham answers that to argue from Gods power to his will or to election or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is strange unsound in Divinity and reason But this is no answer For there is no such arguing made by me My arguing is none of those ways he mentions but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power without which it were hopeless and impossible to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead from v. â—5 which sure no act of man can perform But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men therefore the ingraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church but an higher act of giving faith according to election But saith he It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ in Jews and Gentiles to bring to outward confession To which I reply it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers specially backt with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperours as experience hath often shewed therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the ingraffing But saith he It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all nations To which I reply 1. The gathering them together into one place is not ingraffing them into the visible Church for ingraffing them imports joyning them to others but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves the gathering into one place is accidental to their ingraffing iâ—to their own Olive he ingraffing may be without it and if they go together it is likely the ingraffing will be before that gathering and therefore that gathering and this ingraffing cannot be the same 2. That gathering may be by the power and favour of Emperors and Kings as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem and therefore is not this act of ingraffing
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
externally in covenant and Church-estate also as being yet in the Olive and Kingdom of God and not cast out untill their unbelief or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah Rom. 11.20 to which the Jewes had not as yet come Ans. A Church of the Gospel is such a company as avoucheth the Gospel the Gospel was that Jesus was the Christ to the being in the Church of the Gospel it is not sufficient that there hath not been a total or final rejection of the covenant but it is necessary there be an explicit believing and owning of Christ John 8.24 To be a people so cast off as to have the offer of grace taken from them presupposeth such a rejection Acts 13.46 Mat. 21.43 But to be a Gospel-Church or member of a Gospel-Church requires more then a non-rejection to wit an express avouching of the Gospel Non-rejection doth not make a Gospel-Church or Church-member if it did the salvage Americans that never heard of the Gospel and so have not rejected it should be a Gospel-Church and Church-members Yet that Jewish Church of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were of and those Jewes themselves had rejected Christ with much violence John 9.22 Acts 3.13 14 15. and therefore they could have no covenant or Church-right no not externally quoad homines from their standing in that Church by which they might have claimed admission into the Christian Church by baptism without repentance and faith in Christ no not though they were supposed to have been without any scandalous sin deserving excommunication or suspense from the seal But Master Cobbet is bold to avouch that this Church was a Gospel-Church visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church which to me is such a paradox as is by no means to be received For then that Church should be a Gospel-Church which did obstinately adhere to the law and they interessed in the Covenant of grace who sought righteousness by the works of the law and they a Christian Church who denyed persecuted killed Christ and avouched themselves Moses his disciples John 9.27 not Christs And if that Church and the Christian be the same essentially he that was admitted to the Jewish Church was admitted to the Christian then baptism was needless yea irrigular for the entering and admission of a believing Jew into the Christian Church contrary to that 1 Cor. 12.13 for they were in the Christian Church before in that they were in the Jewish Church essentially the same then did Peter ill to exhort them to save themselves from them Acts 2.40 then was Luke mistaken in saying v. 47. The Lord added them daily to the Church after they were converted and baptized for they were in the same Church before all which are in my apprehension palpable absurdities But Master Cobbet thus backs his assertion Unless whilst the Jewish church stood any will say there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world but a legal Church for there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Ans. the perpetual visibility of the true Church is a point in which Papists and Protestants differ The Papists assert a perpetual visibility of the Church in Pastors and people as sensible as any other society of men so that at any time one may point with his finger and say this is the Church the Protestants that though it abide always upon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certain number that constantly profess it yet this number may be very small and their profession so secret among themselves that the world and such as love not the truth shall not see them they remaining so hidden as if they were not at all Thus Doctor John White in his Way to the true Church sect 17. digress 17. sets down the difference If Master Cobbet mean as he seems to do a visible political Church in the former sense then it is no absurdity to say at some time while the Jewish Church stood there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world For at the time of Christs passion when the Disciples were scattered the shepherd being smitten Matth. 26.31 there was no such visible Evangelical Church yea some of the Papists themselves quoted by Doctor White in the same place hold that about the time of Christs passion the true faith remained in none but onely the Virgin Mary Alsted suppl panstr cath Chami de eccl l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. Dâ—inâ—e tempore passionis Christi ecclesia non erat visibilis talis scilicet in qua erant praelaâ—i subditi pastores oves Nam ecclesia visibilis non erat apud pharisaeos scribas Illi enim impudenter sceleratè errarunt But in the latter sense which the Protestants follow we can assign an Evangelical visible Church in the world distinct from the Jewish while the Jewish Church stood Alsted ubi supra Ergo ecclesia externa etiam tota deficere potest remanentibus occultis fidelibus quales tum temporis erant Simeon Anna Nicodemus c. At the time of Christs incarnation and before there was in the Protestant sense a true visible Evangelical Church in Simeon Anna and those to whom she spake who looked for redemption in Jerusalem Luke 2.38 In the time of John Baptists and Christs Ministery many baptized by John and Christs Disciples John 4.1 2. In the time of Christs passion besides the Apostles and those women who professed Joseph of Ariâ—â—thâ—a and Nicodemus are expressed John 19.38 39. to have owned Christ. And these were a distinct Church from the Jâ—wish I mean the Priests Scribes Pharisees and people who denyed Christ though not in their political government yet in their profession of faith which is necessary according to Protestants to make a company to be a visible Evangelical Church and essentially the same with the Church Christian Ames medul Th. l. 1. c. 32. Ecalesia est societus fidelium quia idem illud in professione constituit ecclesiam visibilem quod interna reali sua natura constituit ecclesiam mysticaâ—â— id est fides But Master Cobbet from his erroneous dictates would frame an answer to the argument brought from Peters words Acts 2.38 39. to prove that the imagined covenant-right is not sufficient to intitle to baptism without repentance and faith sith even of those Jewes to whom he said the promise is he pre-required repentance to baptism and thus he writes That then something further was required by Peter of the adult Jewes to actual participation of baptism and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelical Church since it was Gods onely visible Church in the time of Christs incarnation of which he lived and died a member and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal nor was it because
condition on his part yet not in esse but in fieri agreeing to the terms of Christ prâ—posed expecting salvation if ever he have grace to perform his engagements and yeildeth to be damned if not 2. That the digâ—adiations of Paeâ—obaptists one against another are by Gods just judgement usefull to shew their iniquity in â—ressing oâ—hers to subscribe to their Dictates which they oppose one anothâ—r in 3. That they do evidently prove that the argument is not good which thâ—y bâ—ing for infant-baptism to prove their covenant-right to the seal For if infants be onely in the outward covenant and baptism seal another covenant then title to this seal comes not by bare interest in that If it be a mutuall engaging seal then it is no seal of an infant who doth not ingage if it seal the condiâ—ional covenant and it belongs to all then all may be seaâ—ed if covenant interest intitle to the seal if baptism seal absolutely to none till he beliâ—ve then baptism is no compleat seal and so no Sacrament to a man till he believe if it seal the threatning as well as the promise thâ—n those shâ—uld have the Sacrament to whom the threatning belongs as well as those to whom the promise if it seal absolutely onely Gods generall truth then it seals nones particular interest and then none can claim title to it 4. That most of their speeches are meer dictates without shew of proof and that from the metaphor of the seal of the covenant which the Scripture no where useth and Mr B. thinks it the way to lose our selves and not to edifie to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress on it As for what he wisheth me in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. Sect. 80. to take notice of it I reply to what he saith against my distinction of actuall aptitudinal seal I think it not worth while to reply to it siâ—h I used that distinction onely to shew how Bellarmin might be answered without Mr Blâ—kes way of conditionall seal It is little material whether the Sacrament be called a seal actuall or aptitudinall or no seal at all the explication of my meaning before given is enough to justifie my words against any thing Mr B. hath or can object As for that which he saith That the question is not about the internall seal of the Spirit but onely the externall seal of the Sacrament which are two distinct things I answer the question is about my words whether they be true which deny that God sealeth in every right administration of baptism and affirm that he sealeth not but when it is admistred to a believer And though it be true the seal of Baptism and the Spirit be two distinct things yet I say God never sealeth by Baptism without the Spirit nor can baptizing without the sealing of the Spirit be rightly according to Scripture language and truth called Gods sealing Let 's see what Mr. B. opposeth His opinion I prove unsound thus 1. If the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite have all in it that is essentiall to Gods actuall sealing then it is his actuall sealing c. But c. Therefore c. A seal is an engaging or obliging sign or at least a testifying He that actually useth a sign to such an end doth actually seal Now 1. God useth this sign 2. And to this end He useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his Name at his command for immediatly he never useth or applyeth it to any 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end to engage himselfe to make good his promises For 1. To what other end should God command them 2 Else he should command them to be used to one end to one and to another end to another which cannot be shewed that he hath done I speake of the end of the Ordinance not of the event which God hath decreed shall follow Answer The Minor of this Argument is denied And to the proof I say 1. That it is not alwayes true That he that actually useth a sign to such an end doth actually seal For if actuall seaâ—ing be actuall assuring â—as it is conceived to be 〈◊〉 Rom. 4.11 whence this phrase is taken the actuall sealing must be denominated not onely from the end but also from the event as if God use a sign to comfort he doth not actually comfort except the person be comforted 2. That it is not universally true that God useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his name at his command but then when they represent his person As for instance when Aaron offered sacrifice burned Incense c. which were to signifie Christ they did these things in Gods name that is to his honor at his command yet I do not conceive it can be said that God did offer Sacrifice or burn Incense And for baptism though I confesse it is commanded by God to be done by his Ministers and that it is to be done into his name yet it is no where intimated as if they did it in stead of God or Christ as their act 3. But let it be granted that baptism done rightâ—y according to Gods command by his Ministers is his act how is it proved that it is used by God to this end to engage himself to make good his promises For my part I read not any where in Scripture that God used baptism for this end to engage himself to make good his promises nor doth Mr. B. prove that end by any passage of Scripture And to his reasons I answer 1. To the first though neither I nor Mr. B. know any orher end yet doth not this prove that that is the end Besids if I should assign no other end yet it were enough to answer Mr. B. his question to say it is to try obedience as in Abrahams offering his son But Mr. B. might easily know if he would heed the Scripture that there are other ends of God in commanding baptism to wit the owning of Christ as our Lord 1 Cor. 1.13 Gal. 3.27 joyning all Christians into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes. 4 5· The 19 and 27 Atricle of the Curch of England acknowledge this to be one end of baptism to be a sign of profession and to be a mark of difference of Christians from others To the second though it were granted to be absurd that God should command the Sacraments to be used to one end to one and to another end to another yet this doth no whit prove that this is the end which Mr. B assigns for the fore-going reasons Yet sure if infant-baptism were granted baptism must needs be to one end to wit a sign of profession to the aged which it is not nor can be to an infant Lastly if it yeelded that the end of baptism were to engage God to make good his promisses it is a good argument against Mr. B. tâ—at God seals not actually to an hyppocrite sith he