came to free his whole Church from that visible Church-membership it had then by natural descent and consequently to alter the visible Church membership of infants into a more perfect way by setting up a Church throughout the world not by carnal descent in one nation but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ through the preâ—ching of the Gospel And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law it 's bondage and Tutorage whether it like him or not sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means besides that of Circumcision and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed 3. Yet further saith he when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law and the bondage of minority is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before and hath advanced us in his family as the Heir at age is advanced And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family Christs Church is his family and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family Why may he not as well say that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state and made members of a far better Church then that particular Church of the Jews was Answ. It is true Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before and that is the reason why infants are left out I say not cast out of his visible Church For whereas the particular Church of the Jews in which alone infants were visible Church-members was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God and was by descent of birth and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual consisting onely of them who owned Christ as their Lord and therefore till infants do so they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle it being agreeable to his scope if they will speak rightly And the body of the Jewish nation I mean the greatest or most considerable part if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized their children being not baptized till they professed had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared Mr. B. adds 4. And if any yet say that it is not the infants but onely the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state is not this text plain against him For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age yet I can prove that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity Act. 3. last And now judge I pray whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership Answ. That which I say is that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved a Church of a better constitution is by God erected and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state that is from carnal to spiritual which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian till they be disciples or believers and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law which were their bondage Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed For it follows not redemption is extended to those that were under the Law therefore to each individual or to each species or age the term being indefinite and the speech true if any under the Law and those of one species or age be redeemed as in like sort when God is said to choose the poor the weak things of this world this proves not universal election of the poor or weak sith the terms being indefinite they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law all are under the Law Ergo To which I answered by denying the minor producing Gal. 4.21 Rom. 6.14 c. though I might hâ—ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law it will follow that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew for they were under the Law and then it will follow thaâ— the Jews were universally redeemed that they might reâ—eive the adoption of sons And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5 concerning which besides what I have said before Sect. 33 34 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings Provoc provocatus in answer to Boatman ch 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption conditional Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditional are notions in Divinity I do not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's plaâ—e as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities Acts 3. last in the sense he can prove as he thinks that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onely for universal redemption conditionally but also for universal conversion conditionally Which if true then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity Acts 3.26 conditionally and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will he must hold universal grace of conversion and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will which is indeed the venome of Arminianism
deny the syllogism to be good as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major if it be understood in another sense which I count non-sense that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian the minor is to bee proved As for what Mr. B. saith the universal Church never ceaseth here if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members it is false if of an universal Church visible indefinite so as that the sense be some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal but in the definite of one age and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false Or if the sense bee as it seemeth by what followes That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not â—heere I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism And say That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church as it is to term humanity or manhood a man or Peter humanity or the humane nature All know that understand the Metaphysicks that whatever the difference bee whether formal or modal or some other yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other no man saith the essence of a thing which is all one with the nature is the thing but that by which it is In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church but of the compleatness of it But let 's view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he That there is a universal visible Church Mr. Rutherford and others have largely proved They of New England indeed deny a univeâ—sal visible governing or political Church but not this that I speak of as you may see in Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Allens answer to Mr. Ball But lest any should deny it I wiâ—l bring one proof or rather many in one 1 Cor. 12 13. We are all baptised by one spiriâ— into one body whether Jews or Gentiles Here you see it is one and the same body that all are baptised into Now that this is the visible Church I prove thus 1. That one body that hath distinct visible members with variety of gifts is the visible body But this is such 2. That one body which is visible in suffering and rejoycing is the visible body But this is such v. 25 26. 3. That body which is capable of schism and must be admonished not to admit of it is the visible body But this is such v. 25. 4. That body which had the visible seals of Baptism and the Lords Supper was the visible body But this was such v. 13. 5. That one body which had visible universal officers was the visible universal Church or body But this was such Therefore c. Answ. I list not to interpose my judgement in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hudson on the one side and Mr. Allen Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Hooker on the other side which rest much on the meaning of the term Church in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12 28. 10.32 Acts 8. â— Gal. 1.13 c. and some Logick notions of an universal and integral whole of a similar and dissimilar whole the distinction of a Church entitive and organical and the like Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing I shall thus far express my conceits 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alledged by Mr. Hudson vindic ch 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be onely out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren though perhaps the effect might extend further Nor do I think on the other side that in any one of them by the Church is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1 1â— For Saul did not make havock persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem but the word Church there is taken without quantity anâ— so neither notes the universal nor particular all nor some but indefinitely in genere confuso the disciples of Christ or any of that way Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ Acts 22.19 them that called on his name Acts 9.14 the Saints Acts 26.10 wheresoever hee could reach them And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 1 Tim. 3.15 and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10 whether by the Church be meant of what was done to or on the Church that is the believers called out of the Gentiles to whom hee gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius or by the teachers in the Church especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given Matth 16.18 It is true is meant the visible Church but not the universal organical collectively taken nor any particular Congregation organized but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail to keep them in but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day Nor is it said that the keyes should bee given to the Church but to Peter the use of which was to bee in the calling of the Church effectually The other text 1 Cor. 12.28 cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective nor of a particular Congregation not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson nor the former for the Apostles Prophets Teachers are distinct from the Church there taken but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum but in the Church distributively taken that is in the several Churches where they were imployed as Peter among those of the Circumcision Paul among the Gentiles To which the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set gives me occasion to encline which I conceive to bâ—e the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave Eph. 4.12 and it notes not a setting by way of law constituting such to be in the Church but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit as he saw good 2. I conceive the term Catholike or universal
the vniversal Church was onely by reason of their membership in the particular and therefore ceased with it And how is this proved Why Mr. T. saith it is so and that is the best proof and all that I could get Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it But I did then think and do still think it so plain that it needed not proof and as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith that every one that is a member of a part is a member of the whole and that the individual Church that then was was broken off for unbelief and I know no visible Church but an individual Methinks it is all one as if I had said the finger is onely a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body the finger ceaseth to be a member But yet M. B. will try whether hee can disprove this any better 1. Saith he I think I have sufficiently proved that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed but onely the accidental ceremonies and the individual Church that then was is broken off for unbelief but the Olive still remained Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish which if broken off though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed and the Olive still remained yet the infant Churchmembership which came onely in with the Jewish national Church might and did cease 2. Saith he If the Jews Church were repealed yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church must prove it well For if I find that they were once in it I need no more proof that they remain in till some one shew me where it is revoked which is not yet done by any that I know of Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church and of the Jews Church which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal is a piece of Baxterian non-sense which I use not That the Jewish Church national is broken off and that churchmembership by birth is altered into churchmembership by faith is so fully proved before sect 50 51 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me that I count it superfluous to add any more If it satisfie not Mr. B. it 's to be ascribed to his pertinacy in his opinion which to be his proper temper I was told long ago and much experience of him by my self and others find to be true 3. Saith he The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher priviledge then our standing or membership in any particular Therefore it will not follow that infants lose the greater because they lose the lesser and that they are cast out of the universal because they are cast out of the particular Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively because the universal comprehend the most excellent part and the rest also but not intensively sith all the excellency may be from one part Christ the head is not the universal body and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ that is hath not more perfection then Christ for all the excellency in all the members is Christs and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher priviledge then in the particular Church yea if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular yet the standing in the particular is a higher priviledge Else why do Ministers exhort men to joyn with some particular Church and to submit to their Pastors is it not for their advantage Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers and those that are separâ—tists from a particular Church and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large and are so members of the universal Church should not think they have a higher priviledge then members of a particular Church If he do he doth wrong them in condemning them and disswading them from that state which is a higher priviledge Much less is it true concerning infants who are not visible Churchmembers but as they stand in the particular Church For they are not by their own profession visible Churchmembers but meerly in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people as God did the Hebrew nation and no other before nor since This is clear if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant this male infant would be no visible Churchmember there being nothing by which he is discernable to sense to be more one of Gods people then another infant though there weâ—e many Churches of Gentiles â—n other places Whereas on the other side if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers remote from any particular Churches I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal though of no particular Whence it follows that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish they lose their standing in the universal 4. Saith he Persons are first in order of nature or time or both members of the universal Church before they are members of any particular So was Noah Loâ— Abraham and all men before Christ and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church and not into any particular It is so with all others It is the general use and nature of Baptism they are baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so into the catholick Church but not into any particular Church If any such thing be it is secondary and accidental and additional and no proper end of Baptism So that it being first in order that we are entred into the visible universal Church it is likely to be of more durable continuance Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism and about the priority in order or time or both according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular I do agree that persons who were visible Churchmembers by their sensible profession of the true God were members of the universal afore they were of the particular But deny this concerning infants for the reason before given 5. Saith he It is no good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the universal therefore this will not prove infants are broke off If a Jew had been forced into a strange countrey yet there both he and his children had been Churchmembers
pretence we are unbaptized to which end they must coin a new baptism or else they are at a loss And their arguing with 〈◊〉 will be much like the Papists in the point of Transubstantiation which requireth that men renounce their sense and say that they see not that which they seâ— and feel not or tast not that which indeed they feel and tast and then they may come to be in the right and so we must beleeve that we see none baptized in our Churches nor hear it nor know of any such thing and then we may come to be a Church As if the arguing were that there is nothing which Paedobaptists call baptism in their Churches not there is nothing that may bee truely called Christian baptism according to Christs institution and then p. 300. after his fashion when he wants arguments he adds Oh if it were the will of God that we could have as clear light in some other weighty points as we have in Scripture for the baptism of the children of beleevers how much would it do to quiet the understandings of many that are willing to know I dare not say it is a wonder to me to finde such passages in Mr. Baxter but having examined his book of baptism his ten reasons for his practise of Infant baptism delivered in Bewdley Chappel May 4. 1656. His Letters to me 1655. set down here sect 53 c. I cannot but bemoan the sad condition first of Ministers and people who are carried away with such shallow disputings and confident speeches as Mr. Baxter hath used in these writings 2. Of my self and all who go about to cleer truth that they be necessiâ—ated to stir up such a nest of Wasps and Hornets as these have shewed themselves to be who have opposed me if thâ—y do never so brotherly and fairly and regularly declare their judgments contrary to the common received tenents Yet I must confess two things have somewhat refreshed mee against the hard censures of those whom Mr. Blake mentions and the rest the one that His Highness and Council and the Parliament since as I am informed confirming the Ordinance for approbation of publique Preachers seem to have better thoughâ—s of me in putting that trust on me thâ— other that to mention no other two of the ablest acutest and well read Divines and accurate Dispuâ—anâ—s which I have known the University of Oxford in my time to have bred and who have been thought sit for the Divinity Chair have had far other conceits of my writings then these have had the one not long after the publishing of my Examen expressing his rejoycing to see so accurate and scholastical a discussing of the point which he found not in the Assembly wishing he had known of it afore the publishing of it that he might have prefixed an Epistle yet wishing it had been written in Latin as foreseeing that the publishing it in English was likely to beget me more trouble then it would have done if printed in Latin the other who since that wrote thus to me I am a friend to your person whom I have known though not known to you this 31. years and to your opinion too as to the main of it for I beleeve and know that there is neither precept nor practise in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. The first who bears witness to Infant baptism prastised in the Church is Tertullian but so as he expresâ—â—d slikâ—s and condemnes it as an unwarrantable and irrational customâ— and Naxianzen a good while after him in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dislikes it too and would not have infants brought to baptism till they were of some age and able to answer for themselves Sure I am that in the Primitive times they were first to be Catechumini â—f then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminati or baptizati and that not onely children 〈◊〉 Pagans or Pagans converted but children of Christian parents Naâ—ianzen though a Bishops son being not baptized till he was about 30. years of age as appears in his life and the like is evident of some others· The truth is I beleeve Pâ—dobaptism did how or by whom I know not come in in the 2d Century and in the 3d. and 4th began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawfull from that text grosly misunderstood Jo. 3.5 Vpon the like gross mistake of Jo. 6.53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate infants and give them the Lords Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either But although they baptized some infants and thought it lawfull so to do yet Augustin was the first that ever said it was necessary inde durus pater infantum I have read what my learned and worthy friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of it and I confess I wonder not a little that men of such great parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an argument for it Nor is it a small case to me that I finde after all Mr. Baxters shamefull and vain arguings against the truth and injurious dealings with me and the baptized Christians with whom I hold Communion that yet at last though quite besides his intentions he hath so befriended our cause as to lend us twenty good arguments against Infant baptism in his 2d disputation of right to Sacraments in the close of the 16th saying thus p. 156. I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention onely the administration of it to the professors of saving faith and the precepts give us no other direction And I provoke Mr. Blake as far as is seemly for me to do to name one precept for baptizing any other and make it good if he can I know what he will pretend that he intended thâ—s onely against Mr. Blakes opinion of baptizing upon a dogmatical faith and he means what he argues onely in the case of adult persons But that doth not avoid his own arguments against himself though he otherwise intended nor will his evasion serve till he prove that there is a different precept or example for baptizing Infants from that of baptizing adult persons or that any are to be accounted beleevers or disciples by their parents oâ— as his term is proparents profession which will never be done by him I will not say as Mr. Blake saith some have said of me that it is not possible but he goes against the dictates of his own conscience But this I dare boldly say that Mr. Baxter hath strongly disputed against Infâ—nt Baptism in the place forenamed pag. 53. asserting and proving Arg. 1. We must not baptize any who profess not true repentance pag. 62. Arg. 2. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to belâ—eve in God â— 68. Argum. 3. It 's the very nature or appointed use of the external
part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized pag. 710. arg 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ p. 79. arg 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins the rest have speeches to like purpose in which though he puts in sometimes and their seed yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumenâ— and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blakes tenet so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Schollers would read over that second disputation they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism and shewed himself therein an inconsiderate writer But however this fall out it is a great rejoycing to my soul that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining to finish this part of the Review also and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument in his book of baptism about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal which some have given out as unanswerable because this answer hath been so long in publishing not considering that besides the not knowing of his minde about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others and together with my constant labours some other employments extraordinary with domestick distractions necessity of respect to my bodily strength want of help of books in some points of learned men to whom I might have recourse of an amanuensis and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge which this book amounts to and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings and such as sute more with the minde of Readers of whom few seem to search after truth impartially especially in controversies of this kinde In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions of Mr. Baxter Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker Mr. Ford Mr. Crag and the rest And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxters book I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing which I take to be a sufficient answer with the two fore-parts of this Review to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter and he charge Anabaptists with I take my self no further concerned then mine own fact which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous I hope God wil so frame my heart as to testifie my repentance if not I advise them to take heed of rash judging and all their followers of following them in that sin If the objection be still set on foot That those that are as they term us Anabaptists do fall into many false opinions prove Quakeâ—s c. I wish them better to examine reports of us then Mr. Farmer Mr. Breton and others have done of me afore they spread them and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgement who if they be not guilty of such fallings I shall rejoyce with them and hope they will learn to pitty and endeavour to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness if they be that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves For my own part I hope I shall not abet any such errour nor do I know of any such errours or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that errour or miscarriage which we condemn And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord that they take heed of those practises which tend to the disquieting defaming hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed errour as they term it of Anabaptism lest they happily fight against God and wrong their brethren remembring that he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done and there is no respect of persons with God Col. 3.25 And to the end they may search their own consciences and rightly judge of themselves I presume they may do well to lay to heart thâ—se following quâ—stions 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each beleever and his seed 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian beleevers now in their practise 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle pâ—rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of beleevers 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practise the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as Gods worship which is confest to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism the relinquishâ—ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason tradition authority of the Church as it be not condemned 7. Whether it be not an oppression and exercising of dominion over mens consciences to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so nor can be proved plainly from it and to impose on them the practise of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appoâ—ntâ—d 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisie to oppose the Cross Surplice c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism 9. Whether they who justifie Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practise are not partial in Gods Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people 10. Whether they who do so do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavouring reformation according to Gods word 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ who sprinkle or powr onely some water on them without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsly 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy câ—n be denied the Lords Supper 13. Whether it be not a signe that Paedobaptism is not according to rule when there are so many
the Covenant interest external and Ecclesiastical of infanâ—s of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel and his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luk. 19.9 Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25 26. and other places are examined Sect. 45. Mr. Cobbets answers to objections against his 7th concl part 1. c. 3. sect 9. of his Just vindic are considered and Mr. Blakes tener concerning the general nature of a Covenant that it iâ— a mutual agreement Sect. 46. The 27 28 29. chapters of Mr. Blakes vind faed are examined and it is shewed that he hath not proved the Covenant of grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the elect regenerate Sect. 47. Mr. Blakes vindic faed ch 34. concerning the stating the question of the birth privilâ—â—ge of the issue of believers is examined and his objections against my stating it removed Sect. 48. The 35th and 37th chapters of Mr. Blakes vindic faed are examined and his arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into covenant are answered Sect. 49. The 4th ch of Mr. Baxters part 1. of plain Script proof c. is examined his conceits about infants visible Churchmembership and their admission considered and sundry animadversions made on that chapter Sect. 50. The 5. ch of Mr. Brs. plain scrip c. p. 1. is examined and the texts Gal. 4.1 c. Mat. 28.19 cleered so as to prove infants now no visible churchmembers Sect. 51. The arguments from altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call the ceasing of the High Priest c. to prove infants now no visible Churchmembers are made good against Mr. Baxters 5. ch plain c. part 1. Sect. 52. It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now Sect. 53 Letters between me and Mr. Baxter are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he asâ—â—rtâ— whereby the point is stated Sect. 54. Infants were visible Churchmembers onely in the Congregation of Israel Sect. 55. Infants of the Jews were not visible Churchmembers by promise or precept as Mr. Baxter teacheth Sect. 56. That the people and thereby the infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact is made good against Mr. Baxters exceptions Sect. 57. Mr Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26 27 28. or Gen. 3.15 Sect. 58. Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature Sect. 59. The sayings of Adam Eve Noah concerning Cain Seth Shem the term sons of God Gen. 6.2 prove not Mr. Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed Sect. 60. Mr. Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22. Sect. 61. Covenants promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel the righteous prove not Mr Baxters Law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed Sect. 62. Mr. Baxters 9th and 10th questions about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Churchmembership and his 8. additionals are answered Sect. 63. Mr. Baxters ten calumniatory questions and the conclusion of his Letter are answered §ect 64. My answer in the Dispute and sermon to the argument of Mr. Baxter of Baptism part 1. ch 6. about the nonrepeal of infants Churchmembership because neither in justice nor in mercy is vindicated §ect 65. Mr. Baxters arguments from Matth. 23.37 Revel 11.15 for infants visible Churchmembership ch 12 13. are answered §ect 66. Mr Baxters 9th 10th 11th concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th 15 16th chapters part 1. of Baptism to prove their visible Churchmembership are answered §ect 67. Mr. Baxters argument ch 17. part 1. of baptism from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is answered and my answers vindicated §ect 68. Neither from Rom. 4.11 nor by other teason hath Mr. Baxter proved ch 18.19 part 1. of baptism that infant Churchmembership was partly naâ—ural partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith §ect 69. Mr. Baxter ch 20. by his 15th argument from infants being once members of the universal visible Church hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unrepealed §ect 70. Mr. Baxters 16th and 17th arguments from the promise of mercy Exod 20.6 and of blessing Psal. 37.26 are answered Sect. 71. Mr. Baxters 18th argument from the prioriâ—y of infants Church-membership before Circumcision his 19th from Gods mercy his â—0th from blessing and cursing Deut. 28. are answered Sect. 72. Mr. Baxters 21. argument from the absurdity of my doctrine making all infants members of the Devils visible Kingdome is answered Sect. 73. Mr. Baxters 22. argument ch â—7 that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered Sect. 74. Mr. Baxters allegaâ—ions p. 76 77 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine his 23d argument ch 28. his 25 th ch 30. are answered §ect 75. My arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 â—o be into the invisible Church by giving faith are vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vindic faed ch 38. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 8 9. Sect. 76. My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vindic faed ch 39. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 7. Sect. 77. Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7 9 10. is shewed to be successeless and so useless for proof of infant baptism Sect. 78. Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16 17 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents is refuted Sect. 79. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Carters additional promise nor was Abraham thence termed father of believers §ect 80. Mr. Carters conceit as if Gen. 17.9 were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain §ect 81. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter Mr. Marshal Mr. Church Dr. Homes Mr. Cotton Mr. Fuller Mr. Cobbet from Col. 2.11 12. or elsewhere §ect 82. Notwithstanding Mr. Carters allegations of Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.16 24. Mark 10.14 Acts 15.10 Matth. 28.19 the N. T. appears to be silent about Mr. Carters additional promise and infants baptism §ect 8â— Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. Marshal in his 4th concl would have it §ect 84. The enlargement of our priviledges proves not infant baptism as Mr. Marshal in his 5th concl would have it §ect 85. Mr. Cobbets dictates Just. vindic part 2. ch 1. touching childrens baptismal right are examined and refelled §ect 86 The 13th and 14th chapters of the first part of Mr. Rutherfords book of the Covenant are examined and found to make nothing for infant baptism §ect 87. The disasters
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
a bird in a net seeking some evation from this objection though all in vain He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8 11. and not all Jews for they were of divers languages and that they were adulti But what is this to the avoyding the objection that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance He then discourseth that repentance was in them onely in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them For in that distance from his preaching and their baptizing so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable and thence would gather if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance To which I reply 1. It is expressly said ver 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples who were many and could confer with them in that space of time and baptize them in that day though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each 2. His argument is not worth a rush notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it to prove Infant-baptism For it goes upon this frivolous supposition that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized though they shew no repentance much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance which if true the more civil and orderly persons though pharisaically minded as if they needed no repentance have much more right to baptism then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection but to strengthen it that notwithstanding the promise was to them yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance either in facto esse or in fieri either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived of which neither is to be said of Infants Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with and cast the blame of weakness onely on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is yet lest any say it is not answered I add SECT IX Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian. HIs second Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized To which I say His words are ambiguous it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church of all infants of Christians or some but conceiving it meant of all and of the visible Church of Christians I deny the Antecedent And for his ten Arguments not one proveth it The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument to which I have answered before denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God expressed Gen. 17.7 in those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But I deny the consequence also that if it were true that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church nor is it proved by that which he allegeth For they onely are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel which are strangers from the covenant Ephes. 2.12 For if it did prove that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians yet it proves not that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church but the very truth is neither the one nor the other is proved from that place for this only is asserted there that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity Idol-service then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh and out of the policy of Israel meaning the outward policy was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God meaning of it of saving Propriety for Cornelius Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel being no citizen but unclean as being a Gentile uncircumcised yet then he feared God God heard his prayers accepted his alms c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God His next Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children In the old world some were called the sons of God as children of his people Gen. 6.2 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him his children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21. and their lawfull seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they shall be converted and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his handmaid therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants The term Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud and those not infants but such as took them wives of all that they chose which could not be said of infants nor are they said to be Sons of God because children of believers but because they professed the true worship of God Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac Annot. in locum Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus Aquila and many of the Ancients recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius cap. 13. and
the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase R. Solomon Symmachus that they are called Sons of God because Sons of Potentates or Judges of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra and that of others Sons of God that is eminent men because I think the other is more right however they are not called Sons of God that is visible Church-members by their descent but by their profession which is not to be said of infants It is true Ezek. 16.28 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God that is of right as their Land was the Lords Land Hos. 9.3 and this did aggravate their sin that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people vers 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership and the initial seal as they call it is yet to be proved Of Mal. 2.14 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review Sect. 13.26 of the Ample Disquisition to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed All other seed is spurious not a lawfull seed nor such fathers are lawfull fathers who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self Deut. 23.2 which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood by a Seed of God a legitimate seed That which is said Psalm 22.30 A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership it cannot be expounded of infants while such for how can it be said They shall serve the Lord But it notes onely a continuance of the Church promised in a people who should when some decease stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20 is shewed before As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16 He doth not say he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid and it was to express his mean condition or humility as Mary Luke 1.48 not his privilege and his subjection to God not his right he could clame from God yet if there were any privilege imported in this title son of thine hand-maid Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership and that not proper to him as a Jew but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn which he cannot do Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14 children are not denominated holy because they appertain to the Church The remnant to be called holy Isai 4.3 are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive who should be holy in respect of their worship not serving Idols but the living God or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life which makes nothing to infants Church-membership The Church is not called the circumcision Rom. 3.30 15.8 but the Jewish people The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church but Disciples of Christ in all Nations Abraham is said Rom. 4.11 to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised but that any other mans circumcision was so to him much less that every infants circumcision was such to them I reade not sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith of all Sacraments that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs and consequently to infants are but their mistakes not the Doctrine of the Text. Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before Of infants may be the Kingdom of God yet they not in the visible Church The speech out of the Church is no salvation is true of the invisible Church of the elect and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others of the visible it is not true Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews What I said that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were the infants of Christian disciples or believers is true for it is not said their Parents brought them and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ or some eminent Prophet as Matth. 16.14 Luke 7.16 The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog Matth. 15.26 not because she was not a believers childe but because a Gentiles childe not an Israelitess Though Diâ—t 30.6 Isai 44.3 Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly yet it is not promised to any but the elect as the fuller promise Isai. 54.13 is expounded by Christ himself John 6.45 and therefore not as Mr. Church saith to children as they are the children of Gods People if as be taken reduplicatively for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy and yet if it were till they shew it we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members or to baptize them without special revelation It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10 no infant is called a Disciple There may be hope of infants salvation they may be of the body of Christ though they be not of the visible Church Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens that is of the Nations by birth and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe Matth. 15.26 if we had then lived but in the sense as it is now used and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens that is infidels and whose society is to be shunned nor our infants who are neither infidels nor believers they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily as in Logick they say a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme by reason of the incapacity of the subjects so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15 serves onely to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists for without there is
meant of being without the city or heavenly Jerusalem vers 14. and Dogs there are ranked with Sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and such like neither of which needs be said of infants though we say they are not visible members in the Christian Church and that they are not yet believers Christ an infant was head of the Church yet visibly he appeared not the head of the Church till he was manifested to be so Infants may be members of Christ the head invisibly but not visibly till they shew faith SECT X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship entitles them not to Baptism IN the third Argument is not much more than was said before and is answered Jews infants were meet for circumcision because of the command to them ours not meet for Baptism because we have no command or example it is true Matth. 18.22 A little childe is made a Pattern to those that are saved in respect of humility or freedom from ambition but it doth not thence follow that this meer negation of ambition doth qualifie them for Baptism unto which actual Discipleship or Profession is ordinarily necessary Christ admittted to him and blessed little children Mark 10.13 but did not appoint to baptize them which it is likely he would if he had judged them meet for it If Parents may enter into covenant for their children and dedicate them by solemn vow as Hannah did of which there is cause of doubt whether now it is to be done as then yet it follows not they are to be baptized sith Baptism is to be the persons own engagement not anothers for him yea if this reason be good each Parent may baptize its own childe though a woman sith Hannah could dedicate her childe by vow to God If Israel be holiness to the Lord Jer. 2.3 yet it follows not believing Gentiles infants are meet for Baptism Joel 2.16 the children that suck the breast are required to fast if this prove them meet for Baptism by like reason should the Ninivites children and cattle be meet too Jonah 3.5 7 8. The Psalmist was cast on God from his mothers belly Psal. 22.10 not by dedication to God but by special providence as vers 9. shews Infants of Christians it is rightly judged may have in them the principal things signified by Baptism but not that they have them till they shew it If Mr. Church could make it good that God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity he should say somewhat to purpose but I am out of hope to finde any good proofs from him but trifling dictates and impertinent allegations Psalm 119.122 is a Prayer wherein the Psalmist prays God to be surety for him for good that is says the New Annot. to put himself between him and his enemies as if he were his Pledg it is no undertaking he will and if it be it is nothing for his infants surely not to supply what is wanting in them by reason of infancy for Baptism He will circumcise the hearts of his peoples children Deut. 30.6 but this is meant of their elect children onely and not necessarily to be performed in infancy Christs promise Matth. 18.19 is upon condition of agreement by two or three to ask in his Name nor is it said for them and theirs however not without subordination to his secret purpose and other limitations That of Isai 22.24 is rightly expounded in the New Annot. by learned Mr. Gataker All his kindred and allies with their issue as well small as great shall partake of Eliakims honour in one imployment or other so that this with the other Texts might as well prove a man in the Moon as that which Mr. Church infers Therefore such infants are judged meet for Baptism His next that Christians infants have righteousness by imputation Rom. 5.19 as they have guilt by imputation is true onely of the elect but makes them not meet for Baptism till they are called What he says Shews of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for Baptism is said without proof the contrary is proved before All his Reasons he brings to prove it serve as well to prove them not necessary that a person be judged meet for the Lords Supper Infants may be rightly judged to have original sin in them without shews because the Scripture says so but tells us of none meet for Baptism but disciples and believers The Israelites infants did as much eat the Lords Supper as were baptized 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. If the Text proves the one it proves the other Baptism is called Baptism unto repentance Matth. 3.11 as well as Baptism of repentance It is well it is confessed that Johns Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance but it is true also that it is often so called Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 13.24 19.4 and but once unto repentance and it might have been observed which Beza notes on Matth. 3.11 that it might be there read at repentance or when they repent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 12.41 is rendered at the preaching of Jonah however if it be read unto repentance the meaning is to the same effect that when he baptized them they professed repentance for the present and for the future In answer to the Objection infants by like reason should have the Lords Supper he tells us that the ceremonies are different in the one the person is to be active in the other passive but the Scripture says not so but requires Baptism as a duty and thereto profession of faith as a prerequisite He saith Baptism is the Sacrament of entrance into the church the other of progress but this proves the rather that infants should have the Lords Supper sith they are to grow and make progress after their entrance What he saith it cannot be given to infants is false for they can take Bread and Wine and it was given them six hundred years together as many both Protestants and Papists confess What he saith Argument 4. pag. 30. Sealing the covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that church-state is manifestly false for that sealing was no other than circumcision which if it were not proper to the Jewish Church-state nothing was It is frivolous which Mr. Church says The commission to baptize must be expounded by the command to circumcise What is said about the antiquity of infant-baptism is elsewhere answered Exam. part 1. Apol. Sect. 15 16. Praecursor Sect. 3. Dionysius Areopagita is a spurious Authour as whole Juries of Protestants and Papists confess Salmasius saith in his Letter to Colvius pag. 179. that he is no elder than the fith age pag. 441. it is certain that he wrote about the fith age There 's plainer proof for Episcopacy being in use nearer the Apostles days than for Paedobaptism it is no
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
though he that hath right to a temporal inheritance hath right likewise to the sealâ— and deeds that do convey that inheritance to him yet in Law it is not necessary that there be a sealing to each inheritour by himself A man may have a deed sealed for him to another as a Feoffee in trust as is usual in the Case of young Orphans to one man is conveyed the estate of many So that besides the frivolousness of this conceit to make the term seal of the Covenant of the Essence of baptism though it be but a metaphor not found in Scripture and thence and the use in civil Negotiations to make a rule for the service of God yet were this kind of proof allowed the Major is not true that to whomsoever the covenant it self belongs to them alsâ— belongs the seal of the Covenant meaning it in their own persons For a Feoffee in trust may have the Estates of many conveyed to him and so the parent by this reason may be baptized for the child And for the other reason it is also insufficient Abrahams posterity being in covenant receive the sign of Circumcision the seal of the Covenant for the seal of the Covenant is as large as the Covenant it self But neither is it true that the Seal of the Covenant in Abrahams posterity was as large as the Covenant it self the women being in Covenant and yet not to be sealed in their own persons nor if it were true doth it prove the Proposition For if it were so by vertue of a particular command then it follows not that if it were so then it must be so now without the like command Nor is the Minor proved from Gen. 17.7 10 11. Acts 2.38 39. For in the one is affirmed only that God will be a God to Abraham and his seed which is not all one with every believer and his seed in the other whatever the promise be and howsoever Peter meant it was to them and their children yet it is not said to you believers and to your children as the children of believers for then he had spoken false they being not then believers and therefore it proves not that the covenant belongs to Believers and their children This is enough to shew the vanity of Mr. Halls disputing For the rest of his Book he being a gatherer out of others as he saith and in most things he should argue referring us as an Index to their writings I think it best to rid my hands of him and to deal with his Authors he points to There were sent to me by some friends these two following Arguments in manuscript as judged by some unanswerable The first thus What privilege the proselyted Gentiles had who joined themselves to Abrahams Family in reference to their infant seed in the Ordinance of Circumcision the like privilege the Christian Gentiles in the New Testament have in reference to their infant-seed in the Ordinance of baptism But the Proselyted Gentiles had this privilege that when they were circumcised their children were circumcised in their infancy Ergo the Christian Gentiles have the same privilege that their children should be baptized in their infancy To which I answer letting pass the exception to the quaternity of terms and conceiving what privilege is put for whatsoever privilege universally without which the argument would be all of particulars and so the Syllogism naught I deny the Major and my reason is because were it a privilege or not what was done in the use of circumcision by vertue of an express command is not to be done in the use of baptism without the like command If it were the Apostles did ill in not baptizing a whole Nation old and young together and we do ill in keeping away the young ones of believers baptized from the Lords supper when being circumcised they were not debarred from the Passover The other argument is in these words To whom the outward visible covenant of God manifestly belongs to them in the daies of the Gospel the initiating ordinance viz. baptism belongs But unto the infant-seed of believers the external visible Covenant of God doth manifestly belong Ergo to the infant-seed of believers in the daies of the Gospel the initiating Ordinance viz. baptism belongs To which I answer what outward visible covenant he means except baptism I know not If he speak as Mr. M. speaks and some others I have shewed in my Apology sect 10. that by it is meant the outward administration of the Covenant which is no other now but baptism Now if this be the meaning of the Author the Major contains a trifling tautology in effect this They that are to be baptized are to be baptized and the Minor and Conclusion being all one the Minor is to be denied and the argument hissed out of Schools as a ridiculous foppery SECT XV. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel covenant to prove thence infant-baptism is examined and it is shewed that interest in the Covenant did not intitle to circumcision nor is it proved it doth now to Baptism BUt Mr. John Geree Vindic. Paedobap p. 6. would seem to dispute more accurately and after a syllogism which doth but repeat the conclusion in a new phrase he disputes thus To whom the Gospel covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians to them the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant doth belong To children of believing Christians the Gospel covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Ergo to them the Sacrament of initiation doth belong To which I answer Mr. Geree in this syllogism hath altered the term in his prosyllogism it was in that the sacrament of initiation instituted for Christian Churches here it is the Sacrament of initiation appointed for that administration of the Covenant and wherein he supposeth 1. The sacrament appointed for that administration of the Covenant 2. The Sacrament of initiation appointed for the administration of the Covenant all one with the Sacrament of initiation instituted for the Christian Churches and from thence would derive a rule for baptism But that being a phrase not used in Scripture nor perhaps deducible from it and at best ambiguous it serves for no proof and therefore serves only to mislead those understandings which are apt to be caught with such chaff That the phrase is not used in Scripture will not I suppose be denied no where is baptism called either a Sacrament or a Sacrament of initiation or said to be appointed for that administration of the Covenant nor is it deducible from thence For there is no place that I find that makes this the proper and immediate use of baptism to be the administration of the Covenant so that thereby either the making of the Covenant or the conferring or assuring to the baptized the benefits of the covenant should be the next end of it self intended therein The immediate and proper use of it is to be a sign that
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
because it is enlarged to all the Lord shall call but all these have not the Holy Ghost in that extraordinary way nor any promise of it I confess this answer is good against those that expound the words thus the promise of the gift of prophecy Joel 2.28 is to you and your children and to all afar off as the subjects to whom this gift is promised for then it would not be true sith all had not that gift 1 Cor. 12.28 yet it may be true in this sense The promise of the gift of the Spirit in that visible way is fulfilled to you and your children and all afar off called by God as the persons who had benefit by it and so were the Finis cui of those gifts promised as having the benefit of them though not the subjects in whom they were 2. Saith Master Blake however the promise be extended yet that promise is on condition of their baptism and is an encouragement to baptism and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of circumcision To which I say 1. If the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are believers and call on the Name of the Lord as here followes then the promise is to the elect onely and the call into the visible Church which Master Blake before denied 2. Though extraordinary gifts were given after baptism often yet they were given also before Acts 10.44 c. and therefore I doubt it is not true which Master Blake saith that promise of extraordinary gifts is on condition of their baptism nor doth the text assert it 3 As the promise is an encouragement to baptism so it is to repentance which is first required afore baptism by the Apostle 4. There is not a word in the text Acts 2.38 39. which yields a proofe of any of those positions which Master Bl. so importunely obtrudes 1. That baptism is there urged as a sign and seal of the promise 2. That they were encouraged to baptism in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision 3 That the Scripture delivereth and the Apostle urgeth the promise as to men and their posterity to them and theirs so as that God promiseth to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed 4. That the Apostle holds this out to draw them on to this seal of the Covenant to accept baptism on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision But Master Blake his chiefest opposition about this text is against me and therefore he bends himself against the fourth Section of my Exercit. And first he excepts against my words that the promise made which reading I then followed but since like rather the supplement fulfilled is the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him as is expounded Acts 3.25 26. Acts 13.32 Rom. 15.8 9. Thus I answer it is true that Jesus Christ is the most eminent mercy promised and may be called the promise virtualiter being the ground of all promises and therefore some Interpreters have mentioned the gift of Christ on this occasion But it is plain that Gods Covenant and this gift are to be distinguished Christ is promised in priority to the Jew before the Gentile The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Christ can be of them expected It is therefore the covenant it self entred with parent and child root and branch that is here meant as Calvin in the words before observes from which the giving of Christ in the flesh followes And therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true sense of it seeing as you are Abrahams children you are within the Covenant you ought to acknowledge Christ to be the head and foundation of the covenant The covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is here meant which from Abraham had been the Jewes priviledge Rom. 9. To which I reply If Christ may be called the promise virtually then it is no obscuring the text to interpret the being of the promise to them of the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him nor doth this hinder the distinguishing of Gods covenant and this gift or the promising of Christ to the Jew before the Gentile or the Jewes taking into covenant before this gift of Christ can be expected of them or that the giving of Christ in the flesh followed the covenant it self entered with parent and child root and branch meaning Abraham and his seed as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 understands it and therefore in all this there is nothing brought by Master Blake which makes void my interpretation but confirms it rather But for such a covenant as Master Blake imagines of Gods being God to every believer and his infant child in respect of Church-membership in the Church visible of Christians and other outward Church-priviledges I find no word in all the Scripture And for Diodati his words if he so meant what he speaks of their being in covenant because they were Abrahams children by natural descent he answered from the sense of the place but Master Blake hath more to say to me I had said the limitation as many as the Lord our God shall call shewes that the promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called of God which is more expresly affirmed Acts 3.26 To this Master Blake answers I wonder how it came into Master T. his head to call this application a limitation it plainly enough speaks his boldness in dealing with the Scriptures had the Apostle said to you is the promise made and to your seed in case God shall give you a call he had spoke to Master T. his purpose but saying to you and to as many as the Lord your God shall call it plainly shewes that he does not limit but amplifie the mercy extending it not barely to the Jewes who in present by reason of fruition of ordinances were a people near to the Lord Psal. 148.14 but also to the Gentiles who Ephes. 2.17 were afarre off To which I reply A limitation of a proposition is the determining of it according to what the predicate agrees to the subject or doth not agree as Keckerm syst Log. l. 2. sect 1. c. 4. And thus do the words as many as the Lord not as Master Blake your but our God shall call limit the copulative proposition the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off determining to which of each of these and in what respect the promise is to them And to take away Master Blakes wonderment the fruit of ignorance and often of folly which he and his brother Baxter do often express about me that they may describe me as some strange example of Gods judgment in blasting my intellectuals I will tell him how it came into my head to call those words a limitation of the proposition First the placing of the words at the end of the proposition did give me occasion to take them for a limitation Secondly the term
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
baptism and that baptism was not administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes but in a distinct company by a select officer to a severed people from that church Nor do I know it to be true that baptism is a church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation administred onely in and by a church of Christ but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administred by one single Minister without the presence or consent of a church of Christ nor do I think baptism was at that time the Jewish ordinance being neither appointed in their law nor by Ministers chosen by them nor by their authority nor according to their direction nor for the setling of their church-discipline or authority but in these and all other respects opposite or distinct from the Jewish church And although I grant the Jewish people or church though Pareus com in locum saith Dominus areae suae h. e. ecclesiae imo totius mundi Christs floor yet from hence it followes not they were Christs visible Church there being other reason why they are called Christs floor because Christ imployed his fanne to wit his preaching among them being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15.8 though they were not Christs visible church that is a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christs time all sorts which John baptized hypocrites or upright ones were interessed in the Jewish church as Christs floor nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11 12. the being in the floor importing onely their position no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby But Master Cobbet goes on Into this Church-fellowship also did Christs own Disciples by that new way of initiation visibly seal persons which were the reformed part of that Jewish church continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish church and their fellowship in the Church-ordinances then dispensed and not separating from the same either gathering into distinct churches or calling to them other ordinary church-officers which yet were not actually given by Christ untill upon his ascension Ephes. 4.8 11 12. Ans. The Disciples of Christ did not visibly seal persons by that new way of initiation into the Jewish Church-fellowship the fellowship they had in the Jewish church was by their birth and circumcision and the law they were under which they submitted to while it was in force and observed such legal ordinances as were appointed them acknowledging the Priests and other Officers of the Jewes according to their place yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jewes and were gathered into a distinct church had Christ and his Apostles and the 70. as their Officers in ordinary afore the ascension of Christ nor is there one jot of Scripture that doth in the least countenance this fond conceit of Master Cobbet that Jewish Church-membership gave title to baptism or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons as he imagins why Peter required of the Jews to whom he said The promise is repentance afore baptism he takes on him to assigne the genuine reasons thus But the reason rather was partly because as was said they were under such offence Ans. He required repentance because they had sinned in crucifying Christ but repentance was not required to take away the offence of the church the Jewes were of nor for the removing of a suspension from the seal For Peter was no Jewish Church-officer neither did any of the Jewish church in way of Discipline deal with those Jewes by any church-act tending to their correction for that sin yea the rulers of the Jewes with the people did generally avow that act as well done nor was any thing more offensive to them then the profession of Christ and repentance for the killing of him But Peter requires repentance as a necessary prerequisite universally to baptism and as the way to remission of sins which their perplexed soules needed Master Cobbet addes And partly because albeit their church were a true Evangelical church yet it was not so pure and perfect but had many gross mixtures both of ceremonial administrations which were now to be laid aside and of most palpably and openly corrupt and rotten members Ans. Neither doth Master Cobbet offer any proof for this his speech neither is there any likelyhood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things sith in none of his speeches he doth take exceptions at their church by reason of them nor had this been a sufficient reason to urge them to repentance afore baptism because though they had covenant and Church-right to baptism yet their right was to be suspended to the seal without repentance because they had gross ceremonial mixtures and openly corrupt members the Jewish church of which they were members being a gospel-gospel-church essentially the same with the christian if Master Cobbet say true for if this were a reason the New-Englâ—â—â— Elders do ill to admit godly persons to the seal with them which came from â— Paâ—ish-church in England in which were the like mixtures and corrupt members without like repentance nor doth it appear that those Jewes had any hand in those ceremonial administrations and though they sinned a great sin in crucifying Christ yet it waâ— through ignorance Acts 3.17 In a word were it granted Master Cobbet that Peter did require repentance for any of these reasons yet the argument is no whit infringed thereby that bare interest in the covenant doth not give title to baptism without repentance sith it did not give title to these Jewes even then when notwithstanding their offence and the corruptions in their church yet the promise was asserted to belong to them de praesenti in respect of external right and administration if Master Cobbets exposition hold good which is directly opposite to the requiring of repentance to baptism by reason of a suspension of their right to the seal by reason of offence and corrupt mixtures But let 's hear Master Cobbet a little further And partly saith he because it was now requisite not onely to acknowledg the promised Mâ—ssiah of Abrahams loynes to be he alone which by his bloud should come actually as well as virtually to ratifie the covenant of grace visibly made with them as they did in receiving the seal of circumcision but that they own the Lord Jesus who was crucified by and among them as he which alone did thus which amongst other testimonies baptism witnesseth therefore more was now required of the adult Jews than formerly which yet was not required of their unripe children Ans. I deny not circumcision to have had this use that it might signify that the promised Messiah should come out of Abrahams loynes and I take it as certain that baptism was appointed that thereby the baptized should own the Lord Jesus and witness that he was the Messiah and that
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
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ— would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ— no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
of no other then the Jewish children 3. The text Acts 2.39 speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration 4. If it did yet it speaks of none other children but Jewish and so not of ours and therefore the tenent may be an humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour 2. Saith Master Cobbet these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptism and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way Ans. the Jewes were not tyed by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and priviledge but a duty to which the promise did encourage nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children but the effectually called so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized 3. Saith he to suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respector of persons Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means 2. the Jewes Acts 2.39 were not considered as coming on to Christ but as guilty of crucifying him and under horrour of conscience for it 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration as Master Cobbets phrase is could not belong to the Jewes at that present therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ but coming on to Christ nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration which is Master Cobbets sense is false of persons which were not come to Christ except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel as they had larger priviledges before Rom. 9.3 4 5. and they shall have larger priviledges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter Acts 10.34 denies him to be so as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew Acts of special grace undue to some persons not to others argue not unjust respect of persons in God but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness because of such a Nation and not to another who doeth the same because he is not of that nation contrary to his declarations promises lawes by which he hath bound himself would argue unjust prosopolepsy his declarations promises and lawes being general and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause Saith he the force of the words seem to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant-estate was intentionally to these afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate Now what promise was that verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call Scil. in reference to their children also Ans. There is no colour from the words that Acts 2.39 the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes and intentionally to those afar off nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited and consequently actually to all there named Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser or of the thing promised In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this that God had made the promise to the Jewes already actually but he had not made the promise to those afar off but intended to do it afterwards But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit who would have the promise to be that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 But that promise was made almost 2000 years before not made to those Jewes then nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed In respect of the thing promised whether it be as I say Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God it is not true that it was actually then to the Jewes mentioned Acts 2.39 For they were not yet repenting believing persons or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration it is not true that the promise was actually then to them in external right they had no right then to claim baptism being not then believers neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti for they were not actually baptized which I think is the external administration meant I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them they were circumcised but Peter exhorts them to be baptized and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jewes then present then to those afar off Nor is it true that the Jewes present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate if it be meant of the Christian Church and Covenant of grace in Christ for they were not repenting believers and if it be meant of the Jewish Church and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent and by reason of circumcision so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant and Church-estate but rather out of it Nor if they had been called into it had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace but rather to the contrary And for the promise it is true there is a reference to their children but not because they were believers children or their children but by vertue of Gods call and it is true the promise is to Gentiles childâ—en and Jewes when called of God and no otherwise and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered SECT XXIII Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39
of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onely the same for substance but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations And if so his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words and when he takes on him to explain his meaning he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism or being coÌ„ceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme is the same with the conclusion of it which is meerly to trifle proving the same by the same which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant then to the children of Turks And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do I joyn with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people and that experience teacheth us that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity and that Gods election lies more among their seed then others yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed and particularly the words of the Directory The pâ—omise is made to believers and their seed seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred nor can without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob pag. 12. charge me that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God but onely in possibility that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually which calumnies are reâ—uâ—ed in my Apologie Sect. 14. Next he speaks thus to me But say you to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church which Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply It overthrowes it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male and female too lest you say that circumcision made them members Answer Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them that infants belong to the visile Church yet they put them not in their definitions There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included not in that definition of the Church visible which Baxter plain Scripture proofe page 82 saith Certainly all Divines are agreed That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith known by the two markes above mentioned the sincere preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments Norton Resp. ad Appollon pag. 10. Immota Thesis Idem illud in professione constituit Ecclâ—siâ—m visibilem quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam i. e. Fides usque adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles milit etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16 52. pag. 15. Secondly that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lye in internall graces which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another but meerly the same Church under severall denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation and was visible otherwise than the Christian and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other Mr. M. saith I add also Baptisme now as well as circumcision of old is a reâ— all though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answer Baptism of it self I mean dipping in water is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith but onely when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills should be profâ—ssors of the Christian faith The like may be said of circumcision Mr M omitting my next reason That to make infants visible Church-members is to make a member of the visible Church to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree saith thus to me But say you Infants are onely passive and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians I answer Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members I reply It is so yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish
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
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate For he that useth a word onely in one sense doth not aquivocate equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one Fallaâ—ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur Dr. Prideaux Hypomn Log tract 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist Sophist Eleâ—ch l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing which evidently proves Mr M. guilty of equivocating from his own words For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance which he makes the Covenant of saving grace from the externall way of administration and yet blames me for not including it And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administraâ—ion how could he say in his Sermon pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions If the covenant be the same and the children belong to it Sure he will not say the way of externall administration is the same Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces and distinguishing it from the externall administration but in the second conclusion when he saith children belong to it he understands not the inward but the outward covenant not the covenant of saving grace buâ— the way of externall administration And yet he dare not say the â—nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it that is the same way of externall administration for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites Asemblys Confess of Faith chap. 7. Art 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term which is his frequent manner and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that of which his own words acquit me as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows in which I find muâ—h confusednesse and ambiguity CHAP. XXXVII That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church-membership and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. M. asserts AFter twenty pages spent about the explication of his second Conclusion having varied it five or six times and as I have shewed in every of them still speaking ambiguously even then when he tells us he speaks as plain as he can possibly I pitch upon this which is pag. 116. as his second Conclusion Having said Infants of believers are made free according to Abrahams Copy he thus expounds himself True according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed that look as Abraham the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here By which words it appears thar Mr. M. took this to be Abrahams Copy as he calls it that according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed Abraham and his seed the proselytes and their seed upon their the parents visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Houshold with their parents 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Gentile believers upon their visibly owning of God and his Covenant have this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents Concerning which Conclusion I say still Mr. M. useth ambiguities of speech there being divers Covenants of God to wit the Old and the New and divers wayes of visibly owning God as by sacrificing circumcision c. by Baptism the Lords Supper frequenting the Church meetings of Christians c. divers kingdoms and housholds of God as the whole world and his Church the visible or invisible which might occasion various senses of Mr. M. his words But I ghesse his meaning to be thus As the Jewes and proselytes being circumcised their children were to be so also so Gentile-believers being baptized their children are to be baptized as visible Church-members which being the same with the Antecedent of Mr. M. his Enthymeme and the consequent it is evident Mr. M. his argument is a meer trifling tauâ—ology as I have often said But I shall not insist on it having in my Apologie Sect. 10. and elswhere shewed it That which I shall consider chiefly in his glosse on Gen. 1â— 7 which to me seems as or more absurd than the glosse of Papists Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar generall of the Oecumenicall Church For 1. according to Mr. M. his Glosse Thee that is Abraham to whom the words were spoken is put for without all rule of Grammar or Divinity or as they speak in Logick supponit by every Jew or Proselyte and every believer or Christian Jew or Gentile who doth not visibly own God and his Covenant 2. According to this glosse the naturall seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant are called Abrahams seed without any use of Scripture which speak of no other seed of Abraham but 1. Christ Gal. 3.16 By excellency so called 2. by grace the elect Rom. 9.7 3. Believers Rom. 4 1â— 12 16 17. Gal. 3.29 4 By nature Gen. 21 12. Psal â—05 6 Gen. 15.13.18 Neither oâ— which are proselytes who do onely own God and his covenant 3. The promise of God to be a God to Abrahams seed is thus expounded The naturall seed of Abraham and the naturall seed of Proselytes and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant shall have this visible priviledge that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom a visible priviledge Now to be accounted I must refer to some person who doth so account and the accounting must be either an act of opinion or science or faith and then to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom is not a visible priviledg but invisible it being in the thoughts of anonother and the sense should be I will be a God to thy seed that is men as v. 9. administrators shall in their thoughts take proselytes and their children to belong to my Kingdom or it is some outward transâ—unt act and then it is an initial seal or I cannot conceive what it
and advantagious to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdome and houshold and partake of the external priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so be fitted for spiritual privledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus traâ—ned up so shall it be with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Ans. 1. Privileges of Abraham in that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are either Evangelical belonging to Abrahams spiritual seed that is elect persons or true believers or domestick and political as that of multiplying his seed the birth of Jsaac continuation of his church in and from him in his inhereting posterity till Christs comming the birth of Christ deliverance out of Egypt possession of Canaan these belong to Abrahams natural seed yet not to all but to the inheriting not to Jshmael nor the sons of Keturah The former all are partakers of it who follow the faith of Abraham whether Iews or Gentiles but none are in refference to these promises reckoned Abrahams seed but those who are real believers in Christ. A Proselyte owning barely God and his covenant vissibly is not either Abrahams seed or partaker of the spiritual priviledges of sanctification justification salvation The latter sort of promises belonged to Abrahams natural posterity yet not to all but to the â—eed inheriting nor to all of them but to the Iewes and in them for one of them to the line from whence after the flesh Christ came None of these were made to the bare vissible Proselites and their children though I grant their children where taken into the polliâ—y of Israel and were to be circumcised and to eat the Passover yet neither did this priviledge belong to them by vertue of the covenant but the command nor for their faiths sake as the immediate adequate reason for then these shouâ—d have belonged to prâ—selites of the gate who beleived in God as Cornelius the Centurion who was a believer but they did not for he was not Circuâ—cised nor to be circumcised with his children if he had any nor blamed for defect of it but meerly so far as is exprest in Scripture because it was Goâ—s wâ—lâ— to have it so Now Mr. M. brings not a word to prove either that the children of prosylites vissibly owning God and his covenant or the natural postâ—riâ—y of christian proâ—essors of the Gentiles are either Abrahams seed or have such an Interest in exâ—ernal church privileges as Mr. M. asserâ—s by vertue of that promise or thaâ— whaâ— agrees to Abraham in respect of exâ—ernal church privileges for his faiths sake must agree either to only vissible prosylites or christians or real believers but speaks like a dictator not a disputer Nor is there any good consequence in this what agreed to Abraham for his faith's sake agrees to every believer For then every believer should be Father of the faithful as Abraham was for his faith's sake It is true that if the truth of Abraham's fâ—ith were the immediate adequate reason of external privileges as iâ— was of justification it would follow them what exâ—ernal privileges agree to Abraham for his faith's sake should agree to every believer but such believers then must be true real believers as Abraham was not bare vissible prosyâ—iâ—s or christian professors But surly Mr. M. means no more by for Abraham's faiths sake but this that Abrahams faith was the motive or occasion God took to enter into covenant with him nor was it simply his real true faith but his remarkeable exemplary faith described Rom. 4.18 19. which was the motive or occasion of Gods entring into covenant with him which is not verefied of every true believer and the motive or occasion was not barely the truth but the eminent degree of his faith In my Postscript Pag. 119. I gave a like instance Matth. 16.18 19. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven binding and loosing were given to Peter for his confession sake yet it follows not the keyes are given to every one that makes the same confession as he did And the reason because the confession was eminent and exemplary at a special time and it was but the occasion not the immediate adequate reason of that gift to him for that was onely the special grace and purpose of Gods will 2ly saith Mr. M. Abraham's natural seed prosilites of other nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abraham's faith have brought their children into covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-member-ship as we know they did Answ. I do not know that the proselytes natural seed had the visible church-member-ship Mr. M. Mentions by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 and their parents faith but of Gods command Exod 12 48. 3ly saith he And we know also that this promise of being the God of believers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundreds of years after Abraham Jsaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30.6 so Esa 44.2 3. so likewise Esay 59.21 and this last promise your self acknowledg Pag. 54. to be intended chiefly of the nation of the Iewes at their last calling in And whereas you use to elude these texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to believe and reach not to any privilege which is external I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Jsaac and Jacob for to believers then as well as believers now were these promises made Answ That which I say is no elusion of the texts but so plain and evident that Paedo-baptists of note do concur with me Mr. Rich. Baxter in his letter to Mr. Bedford in the friendly accommodation between them To this and that which followeth I answer 1. These following arguments perswade me that you erre 1. no such promise thaâ— giveâ—h certainly Cornovum or the first effectual grace to all the rightly baptized or to all the children of believers can be shewed in Scripture I will circumcise thy heart and of thy seed seems to me to be none such 1. because els it should not be the same circumcision that is promised to the parent of the child but there is no intimation of two circumcisions in the texr one to the father being only an increase or actuating of grace and the other to the child being the giving the first renuing grace 2. the text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant state but in their adult Deut. 30. For. 1. v. 2. The conditon of the promise is expressly required not onely of the parents but of the childâ—en themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the sam acts which are tequired of the parents viz to returne to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth
a Covenant in this latitude and from thence I thus argue If those phrases a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people be applied to Christians as to Jews in an equal latitude to one â—s to other then it must needs follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as in the time of the Law including all that accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear as tâ—e people of God and is not restrained onely to the elect regenerate The consequence is evident seeing the terms plainly imply a Covenant Here is a Covenant people or no where But these terms a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people are applied to Christians as well as to Jews to one in as great a latitude as to the other That which God speaks to Israel in the Wilderness that Peter speaketh to the Church to which he writes All Israelites in Moses days all Christians professing in Peters time had those titles when onely those that kept Covenant were at any time worthy of them and had the comforts of them Answ. The noise I make is not a meer sound without reason nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers To him I reply 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude which comprehends non-elect persons when there is not a word of any Covenant and the terms he onely saith plainly imply a Covenant And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant sith both electiâ—n and generation may be without a Covenant and the like may be said of the other terms a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar or purchased people â—o that in this respect the consequence may be denied Nor is the consequence good for another reason For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles which I find Exod. 19 5 6. yet there onely three of them and those not said of all the Israelites in Mâ—ses days but a promise of being to God such as these titles import upon condition they did hearken to his voice and kept his Covenant which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days nor in after times And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law sith those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time but of them and then onely when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews and assert as in my Postscriâ—t sect 10. pag. 128. that they are applied onely to those who are members of the invisible Church Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me But I would wish Mr. T. to take into more serious consideration First whether the first verse of this second chapter be meant onely of invisible members Whether the Apostle peâ—swades regeneâ—ate men and onely regenerate men to lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and evil speakings Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively that by new born babes v 2 are meant onely members of the invisible Châ—rch for they are said ch 1.23 to be born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father begotten again unto a lively hope ver 3. And to the 2d that he mentions onely regenerate persons whom he perswades though the duty is incumbent on others 2 ly Whether the 3d. v. be to be thus limited Whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner whether they had tasted that the Lord is gracious And yet those words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men and under the same notion as these ver 9. The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice guile c. of whom he makes question whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious they are this chosen generation this royal priesthood Answ. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 2.3 is translated if and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty but it may be as well translated seeing as it is 2 Thes. 1.6 and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is without making question of it And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion and more suitable to the exhortation For it is more agreable to the nature of a motive to the duty ver 2. to conceive it thus Desire the word to grow by it sith or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is 2. But if it were read if yet in such passâ—ges as these if doth not import doubt but onely is as a rational particle noting the connexion between the terms as Joh. 15.18 Ephes. 4.20 21. And so the sense is here If you have tasted which he supposeth not questioneth then you ought to desire the milk of the word that you may grow by it 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is which is not to be conceived considering what he saith of them c. 1. v. 3 23. c. 2.2 5. c. yet this doubt might be of a more full tast which every regenerate elect person might not have 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes v. 2. a chosen generation an holy nation v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints in whom are reliques of corruption and liableness to temptation 3 ly Saith Mr. Bl. Let him seriously consider the Apostles further enlargement of this honour of these Christians which in times past were not a people of God words borrowed from Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes And in Deut. 32.21 of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church state and profession and so applied by the Apostle Rom. 9.24 25 26. Whence I argue The call of the ten revolted Tribes and of the Gentiles into a visible Church way is not to be meant of the Church as it is invisible onely This Mr. T. hath taken into consideration and answered However it be in the pâ—aces to which the allusion is yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light taking it it seems for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches that in the land of Zebulon and Nephthali where they saw
electos 1 Pet. 2.9 Gentem sanctam populum Dei peculiarem Exo. 19.5 Mal. 3.17 Tit. 2.14 Eximiè nuncupatos quandoquidem hic est populus cui soli regnum amplissimum in Christo cum Christo ut ibidem Dan. 7.27 promissum est ita da uâ—iri testantur sacrae iterae Apoc. 5.10 20.6 22.5 § 20. ad designandum populum electum 1 Pet 2.9 qui Deo cedit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possessionem seu peculium By which allegations it may be perceived 1. that the interpretation I give is the common interpretation of most learned Protestants 2. that it is proved no by one title onely but by four titles whereof not one of them can be applied in the sense Peter useth them to any but the elect 3. that this interpretation and application is confirmed not by one only place of Scripture but by many 4. that though I alledged but one place to wit Tit. 2.14 yet being so manifestly paralel and so clearly pregnant for my purpose it was enough and such as I would allow the like in any adversary for good proof though do not take it that in all places the sense is proved by the alledging one scripture in the sense conceived nor do I think it unnecessary to finde ouâ— the various acceptation of words in scripture 2. Saith Mr. Bl These termes and others equivolent to these are given to the Israelites Deut. 14.1 2. Deut. 7.6 Deut. 32.9 not as a church invisible but as visible members Their qualifications are often a low as their appellations by reason of their relation to God raise them high And setting apart Christs death I would know how they came to this honour Answ. These termes are given in the places cited to Israelites yet that they are given to them as visible members and not as a church invisible or as I would say to the church visible of Israel in respect of and with limitation to the elect or members of the invisible church as a field of corn in respect of the good grain is not proved Yet if it were the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 spoken of christians cannot be verified of them but in a sense appropriate to the elect They are no way a royal priesthood but as priests that offer spiritual sacrifices to God acceptable to God through Jesus Christ v. 5. which none but the elect and true beleevers can do no other way royal but in that they are Kings to God râ—ign ovâ—r sin Satan c. through Christ which none but the elect do a chosen generation but by Gods election to life eternal a holy nation but by regeneration of the spirit a peculiar people but by Christs purchasâ— which can be verified of none but true believers and elect persons And to Mr. Bls. demand I answer setting apart Christs death I know not how Christâ—ans should come to this honour which is expressed 1 Pet. 2.9 3. Saith Mr. Bl. The gift of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers were the gift of Christ and purchase of his death These are for constitution of â—â—sible Churches visible members enjoy these priviledges in common with regenerate persons to which more is already spoken Answ. Though I finde Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers termed Ephes. 4.11 the gift of Christ yet I do not finde them said to be the purchase of Christs death as such nor do I know how they can be truely said to be the purchase Christs death as is meant 1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14 so as that every Apostle c. should be redeemed from iniquity be of the people of Gods possession to shew forth the vertues of God c. nor do I conceive to what purpose this is brought in here by Mr. Bl. except he mean that the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 are given to the visible Church in respect of the Ministers which is so frivolous that I am unwilling to imagine it of him 2. Saith Mr. Bl. Mr. T. objects from that which is said of them they are called by God by his power and vertue into his marvellous light and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before which cannot be affirmed of any but true believâ—rs and elect persons Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state are brought into a marvellous light The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1.20 had a marvellous light in their lamps and yet in some of those there were onely a few names that had not defiled their garments And this light is a mercy the fruition of it a great mercy Psal. 147.19 20. Yea it is applied by the prophet Hos. â— 23 whence the Apostle gathers it unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion as is not denied by Mr. T. himself Reply Where it is that I deny not that Hos. 2.23 is applied unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion I remember not yet if I did grant it any where I might understand it of saving mercy proper to the elect for that is mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion But Mr. Bls. answer is not to the argument as by me urged For I did not form it thus they who have marvellous light who have obtained a great mercy are elect But thus they who are called by Gods power or vertue which therefore they are to shew forth out of darkness into his marvellous light which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy are the elect which I confirmed from Rom. 9.23 24 25. where the same place of Hos. 2.23 is alledged and applied onely to the elect But these things are said of those 1 Pet. 2.9 Ergo. Which argument is confirmed by the words of Piscator above cited and of Beza in the place cited where he saith Simulque ne quis ambigat sit electus necne revocat nos Apostolus ad vocationem efficacem ex qua aeternum illud alioqui occultissimum electionis nostrae decretum certò intelligamuâ— idque ex una Dei gratuitâ— eligentis vocantis misereâ—ordia The new Annot praises or vertues That is that we might glorifie God in our conversations thereby shewing forth the abundant mercy and great power of God in calling us Isa. 8.13 Darkness that is ignorance ch 1.14 whereby is meant our sinfull and miserable estate by nature under which men are kept through ignorance of the Gospel Eph. 4 18. 5.8 Col. 1 13. His marvellous hereby is meant our estate of grace through the effectual calling of God by the knowledge of the truth See 2 Cor. 4.6 Acts 13.47 26.18 called marvellous because of the great mystery of godliness which is revealed in the Gospel and called his because God revealeth it Dr. John Rainold Apol. thes· § 15. Neque soluni è tenebris in admirabiâ—em Dei lucem vocati 1 Pet. 2.9 sed electi 1 Pet. 1.2 nuncupantur atque genus electum 1 Pet. 2 9. Now though meer
view his proofs First saith he Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israeâ—ites priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine â—n number Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant tâ— be of Gods adopted seed under the promises Answ. He might more truely have said here sure is nothing as it was printed to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be of Gods adâ—pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it contained Gospel grace The priviledges could not be oâ— all that according to the flesh were Israelites for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come now were all if any of them priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times but at some times And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls purpose yea this Scripture and that whâ—ch followes put together are an antithesis to his thesis Secondly saith he Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant Answ. The conclusion is granted the natural issue of Abrâ—ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages but those broken off were never in the Covenant of grace Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons but in which their progenitors were nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him but never by right of birth It is false if meant of casting off from being his people as it is meant Rom. 11.1 2 that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people understanding it in their own persons But of this text and this argument more hath been said in the first part of this Review and more will be if the Lord permit in that which follows Thirdly saith he Matth. 8.11 12. whence he thus argues Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome onely upon an inâ—erest of Birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome onely on an interest of birth Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position for if it bee as he here saith thaâ— they were not children of the Kingdome though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7 wherein God saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 17 18 c. expounds it then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripâ—ure they can be taken therefore this argument overthrowes his own positiâ—n 3. If by being in the Kingdome be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish the conclusion is granted but withal it is proved from the same text that they were never in the visible Church Christian but were opposite to it in that they embraced not the Christian Faith but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ and so had no right to baptism though they had circumcision and did eat the passeover 4 It is manifest from the text and agreed upon by interpreters that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down for it is said v. 1 1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onely nor had being in it for the fruition of â—he priviledges of ordinances but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven ergo 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth is the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaâ—en and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances ergo 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews who contemned the Gentiles Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors in the best highest and happiest place and condition 4. Exâ—ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the priviâ—edges of ordinances such as Câ—rcumcision the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper for some of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob did never partake of nor ever shall nor may the Gentiles with them partake of circumcision and the passeover for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers which had been to establish Judaiâ—m contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls
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
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
all the nation was called in one way even servants and all but now God calâ— here one and there one Besides he shews that the Temple Priesthood sacrifices are taken down and therefore the Church constitution This is the very strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say to prove the repeal of Gods merciful Ordinaâ—ce of infants Church membership And I cannot chuse but say They are silly souls and tractable to novelâ—y and easily seduced from the truth of God and far from the stability of judicious tender conscienc't Christians who will be drawn by such misty cloudy arguing without any Scripture proof yea and against so much Scripture Answ. And I cannot chuse but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is disâ—ingenuous and Sopâ—istical in sore â—aâ—ling Readers by such censures which are the mere evaporations of his own ignorancâ— and confidence and I might add arrogance But to the argument I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal or that it is cloudy misty arguing against any Scripture But from it The argument is taâ—en from the notation of the word Church put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 71 8â— that the Greek word for Church is from calling out and that the Church is a peoâ—le or a society of persons called out of the world Whence it follows that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church they that have not an outward call are not of the visible Church But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church 1. by authority 2. of a whole people together 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the onely way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel 2. that this call is of single peâ—sons severed in their habitations relations c. The former is proved by story Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel one by Abraham and that was Gen. 17. perhapâ— there was some other but no other occurs to me and that was according to Gods direction by authority taking in all his house together not by preaching as the Apostles did The other of Moses Exod. 19 c. which was done in like manner The later is proved by institution and practise to be seen in these and many more Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 12 c. Acts 2.41 47. Act. 8.12 c. But of this which is the onely outward churchcal infants are not the subjects therefore neither of visible churchmembership which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by humane generation which it must bee if it bee as the Jewish church-membership was as Joh. 1.13 and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 1.23 It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible is from their different calling They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called they are not of the visible who have not the outward call Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit est vocatio unde etiam nomen suuâ— accipit definitionem Hudson vindic p. 67. exteâ—nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24 cum 10.32 Ames Medul Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6.7 But infants have not the outward call they are not brought into the Church by the word Therefore they are not visible Church-members What saith Mr. B. now 1 You must distinguish between the particular Church of the Jews and the universal visible Church And here I lay down these three proposâ—tions 1. The Jews Church was not the whole universal visible Church that God had then in the world And this he alleageth as my opinion with others and confirms it by sundry arguments Answ. Though the Assembly at Westminster say Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. The visible Church which is also Catholick or universal under the Gospel not confined to one nation as before under the law consists c. yet I agree with Mr. B in his proposition though not in all his proofs For the text Gen. 18.19 proves not the continuance of the Church in any of Abrahams posteriâ—y but those by Isaac nor do the instances of Bethuel Hiram the Ninivites Candace Queen of the Ethiopians evince a Church of God distinct from the Jewish His 2d proposition is if the Jewish Church had been the whole visible Church yet it would have been conâ—â—derable in both respects both as the Jewish Church and as the universal whic◠〈◊〉 pass His third is There is no member of any particular Church who is not also a member of the universal Church Therefore infants were members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Jews particular Church so that if it could be proved that their membership in that particular Church is overthrown yet that is nothing to prove that they have lost their standing in the universal Church But this shall fullier improve and vindicate her after Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular as an excommunicate Apostate c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church if he have no standing therein distinct from that in the particular Church which he hath lost And this was the case of infants they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members as it is and another erected in which they are not reckoned infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members And â—his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this 2. Saâ—th Mr. B. You must distinguish between the essentials and some accidentals of the Jewish Church The Priesthood Temple Sacrifice c. were meerly accidental and might be repealed without the reâ—eal of the essentials or the ordinance establishing the Church it self Answ. I grant the distinction but find it of no use till it be shewed what are the essentials and what not what the ordinance is that established that Church that it is of the essentials of that Church that infants be visible members is of the essentials of that Church which to assert were all one as to say the Jewish Church had been no Church visible without infants which I take to be absurd 3. Saith
Mr. B. You must distinguish between their Church consideâ—ed in it self and considered comparatively as to otheâ—s The Jews were a peculiar people and Church of God no other had the like priviledges Now if they had bâ—lieved they should have kept all their priviledges absolutely considered except it be a losing them to change them for greater But comparatively coâ—sidered they should not have kept some relative priviledges For they should no longer have been a singular peculiar people seeing others should have enjoyed as great priviledges as they yet this would have been without any loss of theirs much more without wholly unchurching them or their children When a man hath but one son he hath the priviledge of being his Fathers onely Son But when his father hath many more he hath lost that priviledge and yet is not therefore turned out of the Family nay the adding of more Brethren in our case is an increase of the happiness of each pâ—rticular for this is the very case of the Jews The adding of the Gentiles would have made the Jews no more to be so peculiar as to be singular in their priviledges and yet they should have enjoyed never tâ—e less Therefore mark iâ— the Scripture speaking of taking in the Gentiles it expâ—esseth it as by taking down the partition wall and making of both one Church but it speaks not of unchurching the Jews first and their children or bereaving them of their priviledges And when in his Vision Peter was taught the Doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church Acts 10. it was not by making the Jews unclean but by clensing the Gentiles to be clean as the Jews So that if the Jews would have believed they should have lost only their comparative priviledges consisting in the singularity of their enjoyments which is no loss to them to have the Gentiles enjoy them as well as they but their priviledges in themselves considered would not have been diminished but some lesser turned into greater And therefore certainly God would never have turned their children all out of the visible Church Answ. The distinction is of the â—ewish Church considered in it self and comparatively as to others but the application is as if Mr. B. had forgotten his distinction of their privileâ—ges considered absolutely and comparaâ—ive and tâ—en he saith if the Jews had believed they had lost onely their comparative priviledges not in themselves considered Concerning which conceits it had been requisit if he would be understood that either he should have given a catalogue of each sort of priviledges or such a description of them as whereby we miâ—ht understand which are of the one sort which of the other My opinion is that had the Jews believed that is every individuâ—l Jew of age or the greatest part â—ad received the Gospel they should have enjoyed with the Gentiles all the priviledges of the Covenant of saving graces the Jewish people should have enjoyed their possessions in their own Land which me thinks Christs words import Luke 19 4â— 42 43. But deny that they should have this as a priviledge to them that their children should be accounted visible members of the Christian Churches For Gods purpose was to erect a Church universal uniformly by preaching the Gospel and not by birth and it appeared plainly by the practise of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles who never took in any believing parenâ—s infant to Baptism and the Christian Church noâ— admitted any Jew without his own personal profession of Faith in Christ. Nor is the contrary proved by Ephes. 2.14 but that very thing I assert For the taking down the partition wall was by taking away the Jewish rites and Church-state that none could be joynâ—d to them without conformiâ—y to the Law now one Church is made of both by faith through the Gospel Ephes. 3.6 And in like maâ—ner when Peter took in Cornelius Acts 10. he declared Gods mind in his Vision v. 35. that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him but he doth not say that every one of their infant children are taken into the Church nor did he any act whereby to shew that to be Gods mind Nor are Mr. Bs. observations of any force for they suppose that if the Church state of the Jews were altered Paul would have spoken of their unchurching Ephes. 2.14 and Actsâ— of their making unclean which implies as if there were no other way then these to alter their Church-state and to leave the infants out of the visible Church Christian whereas I have often shewed the contrary thâ—t it was done by taking in onely to bapâ—ism bâ—lievers releasing from the burden of Circumcision and the Law which might have been though all the Jews of age had been believers 4. Saith Mr. B. So when we call the Jews a National Church and when Mr. T. saith God toâ—k the whole Nation to be his Church it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and restriction to that Nation onely as if God had not called any other whole Nation and so it may be true that the Jews onely were a National Church though yet it is doubtfull as what is said of Melchizedek before sheweth and also in regard of their National and Church unity which yet is the excellency and strength of all other Churches or else by a National Church may be meant as if all were Church members that were of that Nation and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation And thus I perceive it is by many understood But this is notoriously false Answ. It is in this last sâ—nse I mean it and I think it manifestly true with these explications 1. That they were of that Nation by birth property or proselytism 2. That they were Church-members while they continued to be of that Nation any of these wayâ— 3. That they were Church-members with some disâ—uiparance or inequality of priviledges Let 's view Mr. Bs. proofs For it was then as well as now the Covenant of God wherein he took them for his peculiar people and they took him for their onely God the parents engagiag for themselves and their children which made them members of the Church For 1. No aged person no not servants much less ordinary proselites were members except they entred the Covenant though they are commanded to circumcise all in their house yet it is supposed that by their interest and authority they caused them first to enter the Covenant Therefore they were to circumcise the servants bought with money as being absolutely their own whom they had most interest in but not the hired servants whom they had no such authority over except they became proselytes voluntarily Answ. A mutual Covenant such as that at Mount Sinai I deny not to have made the people of Israel the Church of God and consequently the infants then born visible Church-members But I dâ—ny that it was then by reason of the
might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream Laws repealeable determine not of essences but things to be existent to wit particular actions to bee done or omitted Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual and so may bee of the existence of a Church yet if God do separate or call by authority preaching power or any other way without a Covenant they will have the essence of a Church The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species but an individual and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature species or essential form of the Church unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong For if so without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church What the priviledges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation as part of that people such inheritance and other benefits in part which their parents had which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off I do not well understand Nor do I know any priviledge which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible which they should have had if they had been taken in For the priviledges of the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members were as I conceive to cease upon the comming of Christ and the erection of the Christian Church not by any punitive execution of a Law but a wise dispensation of God as he conceived fittest for his own glory and the enlarging of the Kingdome of his Son The species as Mr. B. speaks that is the whole order rank series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church but onely the infants of the Jewish Nation Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence but by altering the Church-state from Jewish into Châ—istian as God thought best 7. Saith Mr. B. Again you must distinguish betwixt breaking off primarily and morally onely by Covenant breaking and merit as an adulterous woman doth break the marriage bond and so cast out her self or else breaking off in a following act by punishment both morally and physically as a man that putteth away his adulterous wife In the former sence all the Jews that were unchurched did unchurch themselves and their children and God onely unchurched them in the later sence And therefore the children of believing Jews who did not adulterously violate the Covenant were never unchurched God casteth out none but those that first cast out themselves Answ. If this last speech were true absolute Reprobation should be an errour But perhaps he means it of casting out by judiciary sentence and so I grant it true of persons of age But in the present business the leaving out infants out of the visible Church was neither by any sinfull voluntary dissertion or transgression of Gods Law morally deserving it nor by any act of judiciary sentence legally or punitive act executing or physically ejecting But by a free act of his Soveraignty altering the Church-state from a more carnal to a more spiritual without any detriment to believers or theit children Mr. B. applies his distinctions thus Let us now review Mr. Ts. arguments 1. He saith their Church constitution is taken down and therefore their membership To which I answer 1. By constitution is meant either the essential nature or some ceremonial Accident And by taking down is meant either by repealing the Law which takes down the wholeâ—species or by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church In the first sence of constitution and taking down I utterly deny the Antecedent and may stay long enough I perceive before he prove it 2. By their membership either he means the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews which I grant or else the whole species of infants which I deny 3. Besides the argument concludeth not for what he should bring it That which it should conclude is that the mercifull gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed This is another thing from what he concludeth Answ. 1. By constitution I neither mean the essential nature nor some ceremonial accident but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley January 1. 1649. that I used the term of taking down but rather the term altered which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shews to have been the term I used And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species nor by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church but by a free act of his Soveraignty as Rector or Lord who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth As when a Lord or Governour one while takes inâ—o his house men and their wives and children another while onely single men he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house but because it likes him better to have his house onely of strong able men alters the state of his house in respect of the members so it is in this case 2. By their Church-membership I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews nor the whole species of infants but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members whether believing or unbelieving 3. If I conclude as I did that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed Let 's view his answer to my proof He proveth saith Mr. B. that their Church constitution is altered because their Church call is altered To which I answer 1. Here is still nothing but the darkness of ambiguity and troubled waters to fish in As we know not what he means by constitution as is said before so who knows what he meaneth by their Church call Is it meant first of Gods Law or Covenant enacting making and constituting them a Church 2. And if so then is it meant of 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. 3. Or is it meant of the lesser additional parts of the Law or Covenant giving them some accidentals of their Church as the land of Canaan the Priesthood the Sacrifice c. 4. Or is it meant of Gods immediate call from heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into the Covenant 5. And if so whether
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
which I delivered that Magistrates had their power from Christ the mediatâ—uâ— and not onely from God as creatour I doubt by this arguing of his that he will not allow the Magistrate to call all his people together and propound the Covenant of God to them and command them to obey God You finde not Moses by prison or fire forcing any man to consent And if he had you must have a little further work to prove that it was that which made them a Church or that the Magistrates may not still do as much as was done herein then Answ. Mr. B. herein doth most shamefully wrest my words and meaning For whereas to shew the different call of the Jewish and Christian Church I alledged onely matter of fact that the one was by the Magistrates authority the other by Ministers preaching the Gospel which could not take in infants Mr. B. wrests my speech as if I had said Magistrates might not do what Moses then did and goes about to insinuate as if the Magistracy were less beholding to me then were meet and endeavours to encrease the suspicion of my lessening his power by my Doctrine in the Pulpit at Bewdley But of my judgement in this thing I haâ—e given account in the same Pulpit on occasion of the Swearing of the Magistrate there on Rom. 13.4 in these Positions 1. That all power is committed to Christ to manage as Mediator Mat. 28.18 Joh. 5.22 27. 1 Cor. 15.24 And consequently what they do for or against the Church it is from Christ enabling or permitting even as Mediator 2. That Magistrates as well as others are subject to and are to yeeld obedience to Christs commands as he is Mediator Mat. 17.5 Act. 3.22 3. That they have power authority in many things which concern the Church of God and are bound to use their power for Christ and his Church so far as their power extends 1 Tim. 2.1 2. And in this sence it is that Christ exerciseth some of his Government by Magistracy under him as also by Parents and Husbands Ephes. 6.4 But I conceive it a business of much difficulty to set the right bounds of their power Many things few or none but Papists restrain them in as the calling of Assemblies judging of Ecclesiastical persons for civil crimes ordering the maintenance and estates of such persons with many more such things as are to be done circa Ecclesiam not in Ecclesia On the other side few or none but Erastians allow them power in the Church so as to act as civil Magistrates in that which is by special commission appointed to proper Officers viz. the preaching of the Gospel administring the peculiar Rites of the Christian Church ordination of Elders government by Ecclesiastick censures and such like things The chiefest difficulty hath been how far they are to use their power for making men profess Christianity accept of Teachers punishing of Hereticks and excommunicate persons and such like acts in which fâ—r the most part Magistrates by instigation of Popish Priests Prelates and others have much miscarried and been unhappy instruments of much oppression Yet for my part I do not deny altogether their power about such things as these especially if they go no further then what Mr. B. here speaks of the commanding them to obey Gods commands propounding the Covenant of God to them restraining pernicious Teachers and go upon very sure grounds that they urge nothing but what is certainly Gods command or agreeable to it nor punish or restrain men for that which is questionable whether it be an errour or pernicious But this I hold should a Magistrate as Moses did by his authority upon fears or hopes or other compliance draw all the people of the Land into a Covenant to engage themselves and posterity to be Christians yet this would not make the whole Nation to be a Christian Church the infants visible church-members capable of Baptism sith Christ hath not appointed this way but another to wit by preaching the Gospel to call his Church and the preachers of it to baptize believers so called 4. I say that a civil Magistrate is not an Officer of Christ as Mediator sith he hath no new Commission from him as the Apostles John 20.21 and others Ephes 4.11 And I conceive to hold the affirmative is of dangerous consequence it will follow 1. That a civil Magistrate is bound to produce a further commission from Christ as mediator besides the appointmen of God as creatour which I neither think Mr. B. hath shewed nor can shew 2. That he who shews commission from Christ as mediator to rule hath the authority of a civil Magistrate which puts both Swords into Elders hands 3. That if a civil Magistrate be an Officer of Christ as mediator he is in the Church in which alone Christ as mediator sets Officers and then he must be a Christian or no Magistrate yea a church member and then he hath rule in the Church and power to do Ecclesiastical acts 4. Then dominion is founded in grace which it seems Mr. B. holds Praefestin Mor. sect 19. as most certain that it is founded in the grace of redemption and universal and brings for it plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 229. Rom. 14.9 which v. 8. shews plainly to be meant onely of those that live and die to him and are his own peculiar people and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not such a Lordship as is over enemies as Devils and children of perdition by power and force but such a Lordship as is with property over them as his possession to whom he hath right as his own 1 Cor. 6. â—0 such as a wife an obedient child or servant The other Texts prove â—ut my first Position The Reader I presume will pardon this excursion being necessitated by Mr. Bs. frequent and continued malâ—gnant suggestions tending to make me accounted an adversary to Magistracy I now return to the point in hand And in answer to Mr. Bs. demand I say the peculiar call of the Church of the Jews by Moses the Magistrate was in his bringing them out of Aegypt into the Covenant at mount Sinai setling them under Laws Priesthod Government whereby they were fashioned or established as a national Church But in the Christian Church the Apostles and other holy Teachers did gather and fashion and establish the Church Christan by preaching of the word without such a way of authority and power as Moses exercised It is true he did as we read Deut. 30.19 but not so as the Apostles who when the Gospel was refused exercised no power over the refusers for Moses would suffer none to live in the Commonwealth of Israel who did not own the God of Israel and if they worshipped an Idol he put them to death Mr. B. adds 5. This argument if good would help the Seekers to prove that we have no Church on earth because not called by Apostles and so the Church Constitution taken down
and none by God substituted Let them that have better eys then I find out this peculiar church-making call for I cannot Answ. My argument the Church call is altered from the way of making the Jewish Church by Abraâ—ams and Moses authority into the perswasive way of begetting faith by Ministers preaching the Gospel therefore the Church constitution is altered doth not help Seekers except it be acknowledged there is no Church now by Ministers preaching the Gospel but by meer authority of Magistrates which was heretofore the objection of Papists against the English churches bâ—t refelled by Protestants Jewel c. For I do not appropriate the Church call to the Apostles or men who could speak that which was meerly wholly undoubtedly insite implantedly the word of God as Borelius spake but to the preaching of the Gospel by any Minister of Christ or other instrument whereby faith is begotten and whereby aâ—one the Christian visible Church and all its members were called in a different way from the Jewish Church call which if Mr. B. do not see to have been the Christian peculiar church making call after his wrâ—ting in his Saints everl rest par 2. ch 6. sect 1. it seems he will not see iâ— and then wee may apply to him the Proverb Who so blinde as hee that will not see Mr. B. passeth on thus Well But may it not yet lie in the second point that they were all taken in to be a Church in one day Answ. 1. What day was that I would Mr. T. could tell me He saith Moses did it but that 's no truer then the rest For sure they were a Church before Moses time Did they begin to be a Church in the Wilderness or did Moses onely express the Covenant to them more fully and cause them oft to renew the Covenant and so onely confirm them a Church was not the circumcised seed of Abraham a Church in Aegypt and was the uncircumcised Host onely in the Wilderness the Church This is excellent arguing Answ. This is excellent answering not to deny what is objected but to propound cross interrogatories Suppose I could not assign the day is not the thing true But that Mr. B. may not lose his longing I tell him it was when Abraham circumcised his house Gen. 17.23 When Moses made a Covenant with them in Horeb Deut. 29.1 If I say Moses did it I say but what the Scripture doth Deut. 33.4 5. nor doth it want of truâ—h if it be no truer then the rest It is not true Israel had their Church call from Moses for sure they were a Church before Moses time this is Mr. Bs. excellent arguing As if the seed of Abraham a fluent being consisting of a succession of people might not have one Church call in one age another in another one by Abraham another by Isaac another by Jacob another by Moses Doth not Mr. B. himself pag. 122. tell us that Moses did cause them oft to enter and renew the Covenant I do not say they began to be a Church in the wilderness or that the seed of Abraham was not a Church in Aegypt or onely in the wilderness But this I say the Church call of that people was oft in several ages by the authority of the several Patriarchs and Rulers as God saw it needfull to bring them into Covenant for better fashioning establishing or recovering the Church fallen but for the most part by the authority of Rulers or if by a Prophet in an extraordinary manner as Elijahs days 1 Kin. 18. and that not by the way used in the Christian Church by a daily adding to the Church and multiplying it by preaching as Acts 2.47 6.1 but by authority calling the whole nation and people together into Covenant at once Again saith Mr. B. But Abraham took all his family to be a Church in one day you will say I answer First It is not proved when they began to be a Church Repl. Nor needs it 2 ly And would not Mr. T. now have a whole family made a Church in a day Is that his charity Repl. Yes and the whole world if it seemed good to God But we find not that he doth so or gives us any rule or president for us to do so in the constitution of the visible Church Christian any otherwise then by preaching the Gospel to them and baptizing Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. And sure my charity must not be my rule about the use of Gods Ordinances but my Lord and Masters appointment 3 ly Saith Mr. B. And what of it had been true if the whole Kingdome either it was with their câ—nsent or without without their consent they could not be made church-members for they could not enter into Covenant with Gâ—d Answ. If this be true then no infants are church-members And though it were true that none could enter into Covenant with God who is of age without his consent which seems to me otherwise yet the consent obtained meerly by the authority of Masters or Governours through fear or hopes without teaching and free acceptance of Christ upon the preaching of the Gospâ—l doth not make a visible member of the Christian Church however it did in the Jewish I do not think the Americans forced to be baptized by Spaniards or other people by the conquests of Charls the Great and other Christian Princes afore they knew Christ by teaching made Christians were such though there was some consent out of fear of loss of life or liberty if they were not Mr. B. adds And never was any such thing attempted Even Joshua treads in Moses steps and bids them chuse whether they will serve the Lord or not Jos. 24. Answ. Whether Abraham had the free consent of all his house to enter into Covenant with the Lord or whether he did circumcise some and take them to his Family Church without their consent is uncertain However if Abraham had a slave refractory which he was loath to lose yet he must circumcise him against his will because of the command with the penalty Gen. 17.12 13 14. And in the circumcising the Sichemites what was done and attempted is known Neither Moses nor Joshua did so leave it to the Jews liberty but that they would have cut off from the people by death any that refused to acknowledge God or that set up an Idol Asa's Covenant was of putting to death whosever would not seek the Lord God of Israel 2 Chron. 15.13 Whereas there is no such Law in the Christian Church that whoever shall not believe in Christ shall be put to death Yet further saith Mr. B. And it being with their consent that the nation were church members may not the like be done now What may not any or all the nations of the world be added to the Church if they will consent and enter the Covenant Answ. Yes they may so many as upon knowledge of Christ do freely consent to receive him in all
that commission is shewed before in the second Part of this Review Sect. 12. c. If it be a base exposition which he sets down it is base dealing if he set it down as mine exposition who yeeld that their commission was to disciple all of a nation who could be discipled though it is true that they could not do it to a whole nation in a day as Moses did and in the event they discipled but here one and there one in a house for the most part Yet more saith Mr. B. And what means that in Revel 11.15 Are not these Kingdomes added to the Church as well as Israel I answer That it means not as Mr. B. imagines that the whole people of Kingdomes shall become Christs visible Church but the rule or dominion of them shall be his as the close of the v. and ch 12.10 shew which makes nothing for Mr. B. as will appear by exâ—minining his frivolous arguing ch 13. Yet again saith Mr. B. like a brave Goliath And are not all professors of Christianity in England as truly in the Church as all in Israel were I challenâ—e any to answer me herein and undertake to make it good against them as far as will stand with modesty to challenge whatsoever any Separatist commonly called Independents or Anabaptists may say to the contrary for I have pretty well tried the strength of their arguing in this And I have pretty well tried Mr. Bs. strength in disputes and find it small though his words be big I do not answer to the name of a Separatist or Anabaptist they are Mr. Bs. abusive language of me Let Independent Paedobaptists answer it as they please I thâ—nk if they will baptize infanâ—s from the rule of circumcision and the Jewish-Church-state they must assert a national Church admit all that avoâ—ch themselves Christians to breaking of Bread and their infant males to Baptism And I conceive Presbyterians by the grounds they maintain Paedobaptism are debarred from keeping the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper and though I challenge not as Mr. B. yet presume I shall make both good in their season As for the present question of Mr. B. I grant it and then I hope we shall not fight about it Yet I tâ—ll Mr. B. I do not take all for professors of Christâ—anity whom perhaps Mr. B. doth nor do I think Mr. B. can find me one professor of Christianity among all the infants in England Yet a little further sâ—ith Mr. B. Either Mr. T. by Church call means that which was the means of entring infants or men at aâ—e or somewhat common to both The Jews did all enter into the Church as members in infancy even they that deferred Circumcision till forty years old and the women that were not circumcised And what call had these infants that cannot understand a call Answ. The Church call of the Jewish nation or family of â—braham was by his authority in a way common to men of age and infants Abraham and his house were by circumcision and declaring Gods Covenant formed into a visible Church and accordingly all that were born of Abraham and all that were taken into his house while they continued in that Family or Nation were of that Church And this way of Church call by bringing into the bond of the Covenant the whole Nation infants servants men and women together was by the authority of Moses renewed at mount Horeb and in the land of Moab Deut. 29.1 though circumcision were deferred for a time And this call was of the infants though not by themselves apart yet conjunctly with the whole Nation the chief representing the rest Exod. 19.7 Deut. 29.10 and among them the infants who might as well understand a call as a Covenant into which Mr. B. contends they did enter Mr. B. adds The Proselytes who were made Church-members at age were first converted to God and professed the true Religion and so brought in their children with them They were converted not all in a day but by times not onely by Moses or succeeding Magistrates but chiefly by Priests or Levites or zealous people or by what way or means God was pleasâ—d to use for that end I did intâ—eat Mr. T. to shew me any material difference between the call of these Proselyâ—es into the Church in all ages till Christ and the call of us Gentiles into the Church And truly he gave me an answer of meer words for a put off wherein he hath a notable faculty which I can find no weight nor sence in nor am I able to tell what he would say to it nor can I conceive what possibly can be said of any moment And as Camero well noteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is now used in the Church as it were in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discipling new to us is as Proselyting was to them So that you see now what this Church call is which he layeth so great a weight on and how much in the main it differeth from ours Answ. When that time was that Mr. B. made this request to me and what imperfect answer it was which I gave him I do not well remember I guess it was when I had conference with him alone Jan. 25. 1649. in his chamber when he drew me to a conference with him pretendiâ—g friendliness but as the event shewed having Jan. 15. before when I suspeâ—â—ed no such dealing written his abusive Epistle before his Saints everlasting rest in which he falsly accused me and proclaimed his driving me to absurdities in the Dispute Jan. 1. drew from me what he could â—or his advantage and then printed it in this Book without my revising my answers or his acquainting me with his printing them or rightly according as they were printing them as may be perceived by this Review and mocking me with this fraudulent trick when I expected according to his promise to see his arguments written from some of his own or my auditors to whom he would communicate them But leaving him to the Lord I shall now give a plain answer to his demand Proselytes were of two sorts 1. Of the gate as Cornelius owâ—ing the God of Israel but not joyning to the Church and policy of Israel These were not of the Jewish Church visible though they were of the Church invisible of true believers and of the Church visible universal of professors of the true God For they were accounted unclean and shunned by the Jews Acts 10.28 11.2 3. Their calling I conceive was as ours is by the word of God made known to them nor do I find that infants were any part of the Church of them whether domestick as in Cornelius house Acts 10.2 or congregational of which I find not an instance nor of any rites or discipline they had 2. Of righteousness who were made such partly by perswasion as Mat. 23.15 and so far their call agrees with our call and the other sort of Proselytes partly by
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
containing questions and those not touching the argument instead of answers and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities and else-where who are understanding unbyassed men if there be any yea to any that have studied Logick to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section and answered his Letters to me to which I hasten SECT LII It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now 1. I Thus argue If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent The consequent of the major I think will not be denied For supposing there were infants even of Christians and an Ordâ—nance before that the infants of the godly should be visible church members and yet no part or members then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance if there were such a one Now that the antecedent is true I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further But the antecedent is true Ergo. That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth is proved by these arguments 1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water pag 342. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so it hath one common baptism And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13 Eph. 5.25 26. Eph. 4.5 out of which this proposition may be proved But no infants were to be baptised This is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 5 c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church 2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13 is the visible Church pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body c. pag 39. What is the Church Is it not the body of Christ The same he confirms pag. 60.318 from 1 Cor. 12.13 which he proves to be meant of the visible Church and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24 Ephes. 1.22 23. that the Church is the body of Christ and so the visible Church is his visible body But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13 all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit namely in the cup of the Lâ—rds supper Diodati annot in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi caenae dominicae piscat analys 1 Cor. 12.13 Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur Dicson expos Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13 ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus idem etiam esse intelligatur Beza annot in 1 Cor. 12.13 Calicem quoqâ—e Domini in hanc spem bibimus Grot. annot in locum But no infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink the cup in the Lords supper Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread if they did they must do so still be admitted to the Lords supper Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5 The whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith Ergo. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the believers the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church or mention of the whole Church the number of believers or disciples in the new Testament But infants are left out of that number in all places in the new Testament Ergo. The major is evident of it self For as we know who was in the church by their mention so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages which make an enumeration or reckoning of all there being no other way to know who were in or out and if this be not true the speeches are false which mention all the whole the multitude as the full number if they were not so The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned Acts 1.15 Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christs preaching and pains bestowed in that city Let but Joh. 2.23 3.2 4.1 Mar. 3.8 Joh. 7.31 8.30 11.28 45. 12.19 42. and divers other places be well weighed and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all who were all Galileans and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me considering the narration all along â—he chapter that v. 4 6. they are said to come together go to mount Olivet and then to return to Jerusalem and their action noted with special notice of some v. 13 14. and then next v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration onely of men of note but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean Mark 14.70 doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ Christs preaching most in Galilee his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see
him Matth. 26.32 Mark 16.7 the disciples shutâ—inâ— the doors and assembling at evening for fear of the Jews Joh. 20.19 do shew that most of â—he disciples were Galileans few of Jerusalem specially when all the disciples forsook Christ and fled Matth. 26.56 the shepheard being smitten and the sheep scattered v. 31. Hâ—wever the enumeration being of disciples and the women being reckoned with them and not their children nor the actions of prayer c. such as are to bee ascribed â—o infants it is evident that infants were not then countted among the disciples and consequenâ—ly not counted for visible members of the Christian Church Acts 2.1 They are said to be all with one accord in one place The Assembly ubi suprà alledgeth reasons why they all should be meant of the Apostles onely but not cogent For 1. the narration doth not any more limit the words Act. 2.1 by Acts 1.26 then by v. 15. 2. not onely the Apostles but oâ—hers were filled with the holy Ghost women as well as men v. 17. Acts 4.31 6.5 3. though they were Galileâ—ns that spake v. 7. yet it proves not the all v. 1. to be Galileans 4. the mention is of the Apostles v. 14 37 42. not to shew that it was a meeting of the Apostâ—es onely but because they were the leaders and chief actors in that Church And that the meeting was of the whole Church at Jerusalem then is proved from v. 41. thâ—s The meeting was of them to whom the three thousand souls were added But they were added to the Church v. 47. not onely to the Apostles or teachers For then the sense should be that that 3000 should be added to the teachers and so many more teachers added whereas they are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine v. 42. by their profession of it the Apostles teaching anâ— not theâ— And hence I gather that not one infant was reckoned to the Church because the all v. 1. are said to bee together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord or one minde and consent which is not to be said of infants From Acts 2.41 I further argue The Church did then consist of such persons onely as were of like sort with those who were added to it which must be granted except it be said the added and those who were added were of different sorts But of those who were added there was no one infant This is proved from the words v. 42 43. that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and fear came upon every soul v. 41. they gladly received the word which cannot be said of infants therefore no infant was reckoned then aâ— a part or member of the visible Church Christian. Again v. â—4 the whole Church is meant by all that believed who are said to be together to have all thingsâ—common sold and imparted their possessions continued with one accord in the temple brake bread from house to house eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart praised God had â—avour with all the people v. 45 46 47. which cannot be said of infants therefore no infants were then reckoned as parts or members of the Christian visible Church Again Acts 4.4 it is said many of them which heard the word believed and the number of the men was about five thousand That this is an enumeration of the whole Church then at Jerusalem is more probable theâ— that it is an enumeration onely of the newly added however the addition being of the same sort of persons with those to whom they were added and no one infant reckoned to the Church but all men that heard the word and believed it is clear that in the number of the christians or disciples infants were not reckoned and consequently no visible church members then V. 23 24. Peter and John are said to go to their own company and to report to them the speech of the chief Priests and Elders and then upon hearing they lift vp their voice with one accord to God v. 31. to pray to be assembled together to be filled with the holy Ghost to speak the word God with boldness and the Church is called v. â—2 the multitude of them who believed to be of one heart and one soul. All which shew that the Church consisted of a company of praying people of a multitude of believers which is not to be said of infants therefore they were no visible church members then Acts 5.11 it is said And great fear came upon all the Church and upon as many as heard these things Here the whole church is mentioned as contradistinguished frâ—m the many that heard these things But no one infant was a member of the Church sith none was capable of the great fear that came upon all the Church from the notice of Ananias and Saphira's death therefore they were not then church-members V. 13 14. They who were magnified by the people who were joyned to the Lord who were of the same sort with believers who were the more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women were not infants But such were the Church then therefore it did not consist of infants then Acts 6.1 The Church is expressed by the number of Disciples by the multitude of Disciples v. 2. the whole multitude v. 5. the number of the Disciples obedient to the faith v. 7. But none of these were infants as their conventing the speeches to them and other acts shew therefore infants then were not reckoned Christian visible church-members Acts 8.1 The Church at Jerusalem are said to be all scattered abroad except the Apostles v. 3. to consist of men and women haled to prison which is not to be conceived of infants therefore they were not then reckoned as visible church members Acts 15.22 The whole Church is said to send chosen men of their own company But this doth not agree to infants therefore infants were not reckoned as part of the whole Church 1 Cor. 14.23 The whole Church is supposed to come togeter into one place But this is not to be said of infants they were no part of the company that met they were not capable of the end and actions of the meeting therefore they were no part of the whole Church The same may be said of all other like places 4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible to whom the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church did not agree But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to infants Ergo. The major is of it self evident as in like manner this is a plain truth that they are no souldiers to whom what is said of the whole Army doth not agree The minor is proved from many places of Scripture Matth. 16.18 Christ saith he will build his Church on this Rock this is meant of the whole Church and the building is meant of building by preaching Ephes. 2.20 4.11 12.
But infants are not built by preaching therefore they are not parts of the Church visible 1 Cor. 1 2 The Church is of them who are called to be Saints which is by preaching the Gospel v. 23 24. But infants are not so called Ergo they are not of the visible Church Christian. Acts 2.41 47. 5.14 They who were added to the Church did all hear the word and believe But infants did not so therefore they were not added to the Church and consequently were not visible church-members They were not parts of the Church who did not come together were not gathered together for all the Church did come together with one accord in Solomons Porch Acts 5.11 12. were gathered together by the Apostle Acts 14.27 But infants were no part of them they were not with one accord any of those to whom the Apostle told what God had done with them therefore they were not part of the visible Church They were no part of the Church of God who were none of the flock of God to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers over them by the Holy Ghost to feed them For all these things are attributed to all the flock or Church of God at Ephesus Acts 10.28 But infants were none of the flock to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers by the Holy Ghost to feed them Nurses were to attend and feed infants not teaching and ruling Elders whose work was in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 therfore infants were none of the flock or Church of God visible at that time They were no part of the Church of God who were not in duty to be sanctified by the Word For the whole Church was in duty to be sanctified by the Word as Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. gathers from Ephs. 5.26 concerning Baptism But no infant is in duty to be so sanctified it were a ridiculous thing to tâ—e Preachers to sanctifie or wash infants by preaching the Word to them therefore they were no part of the Church The Churches had rest and were edified walked were multiplied Acts 9.31 Acts 12.5 Prayer was made of the Church unto God for Peter The Church at Hierusalem Acts 11 22. is said to hear tidings to send Barnabas who with Paul assemble with the Church v. 26. fit persons to convene Acts 21.22 to receive orders 1 Cor. 16.1 With many more such attributes which neither are nor can ordinarily be said of infants no nor any attribute in all the New Testament which is said of the visible Church Christian is said of infants therefore they were not accounted visible members in the first Christian Churches nor are rightly now so taken 5. They who were not reckoned as Christs Disciples were not visible church-members For as Mr. B. rightly saith plain Script c. All church-members are Christs Disciples But infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples This is proved 1. from the places in all the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere where there is mention of Christs Disciples there are such things declared of them as do exclude infants from the number of them I omit Acts 1.15 6.1 2 5 7. before mentioned Acts 11.26 29. It is said that Barnabas and Saul a whole year assembled themselves with the Church and taught much people and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch And upon the prediction of a dearth it is said Then the Disciples every man according to his ability determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea which they also did and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul From whence this is apparent that the Church the Disciples the Christians were then Synonyma or terms importing the same pâ—â—sons so that he who was not a Disciple was not of the Church nor a Christian. But no infant was then reckoned as a Disciple This is proved from what is said of every Disciple v. 29. they determined to send and did send which none will say infants did Ergo infants were not then reckoned among Disciples Christians or members of the visible Church Christian. Acts 14.20 21 22. it is said that the Disciples stood round about Paul that he and Barnabas taught many or made many Disciples and that they confirmed the souls of the Disciples exhorting them to continue in the faith From whence it is manifest that the Disciples then were such as stood round about Paul that they were taught or made Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospel that they were in the faith capable of confirmation and exhortation But such were not infants Ergo they were not then reckoned as Disciples and consequenâ—â—y not church-members Acts 8.3 made havock of the Church Acts 9.1 against the Disciples v. 13. the Saints at Hierusalem v. 19. the Disciples at Damascus v. 25. the Disciples v. 26. joyning to the Church is joyning to the Disciples v. 35. the Brethren v. 31. the Churches v. 38. the Disciples heard v. 41. called the Saints Acts. 15.1 it is said they taught the Brethren v. 3. being brought on their way by the Church they caused great joy unto all the Brethren v. 4. they were received of the Church v. 10. the Disciples are they whose hearts were purified by faith the whole Church v. 22. are the Brethren v. 23. who send greeting to the Brethren v. 30. they were the multitude gathered together v. 32. they exhorted the Brethren v. 33. were let go in peace from the Brethren v. 36. let us visit our Brethren v. 40. recommended by the Brethren v. 41. confirming the Churches Acts 10.2 well reported of by the Brethren v. 5. And so were the Churches established in the faith and increased in number daily v. 40. and when they had seen the Brethren they comforted them Acts 17.10 14. the Brethren sent away Paul Which passages do shew that these terms were then of the same extent and synonymous the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints But infants were none of the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints as all the passages where they are mentioned shew therefore infants were not then visible church members Acts 18.18 Paul took leave of the Brethren v. 22. he saluted the Church v. 23. strengthened all the Disciples which strengthening was by teaching and exhorting as Acts 14. â—2 shews Which infants were not capable of therefore they were not Disciples V. 27. the Brethren wrote exhorting the Disciples to receive Apollos who helped them much who believed through grace Acts 19.1 2. Paul finds certain Disciples who were Believers v. 9. separates the Disciples v. 30. the Disciples would not suffer Paul to enter in unto the people Acts 20.7 Upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them at Troas Which shews plainly that the Disciples did use to break bread on the first day of the week and that those who were Disciples did
break bread which cannot be said of infants therefore they were not Disciples and consequently not visible church-members 2. The same is proved by those arguments which are in the second Part of this Review sect 10. to prove infants not Disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28.19 and by the answers to the allegatâ—ons of Mr. Cotton Mr. B. and others Sect. 11 12 c. to prove them Disciples 6. If in the distributions of the members of the Church then infants are not comprehended then infants were not visible church-members this must needs be granted or exception must be taken to those distributions But in the distributions of the Church where all sorts of members are expressed infants are not comprehended Ergo. The minor is proved from the distributions according to the sex Acts 5.14 8.12 men and women among whom was no infant for in the former place they are termed Believers in the latter they are said to believe Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the Name of Jesus Christ which is not to be said of infants 1 Cor. 12.13 they are distributed into Jews or Gentiles or Greeks bond or free but none an infant as is proved before in that all were baptized and did drink the Lords cup. The like is Gal. 3.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus and that is by faith v. 16. and therefore no infant meant Col. 3.11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian Scythian bond nor free but Christ is all and in all that is by faith which is not to be said of infants To which I may adde that in Tertullians time the children of believers were not accounted actually members of the visible Church because he terms them in his book De anima c. 39. Designatos sanctitatis intended to be holy that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized Which is the more apparent in that Hierome expresseth the same as from Tertullians boâ—k de monogamia in his Epistle to Paulinus tom 3 d. edit Basil. That the children of believers are termed holy because they are as it were Candidates of the faith And Erasmus in his Scholie on that Epistle saith Therefore they which are born of Christians are called holy also before Baptism because they do as it were seek and expect Baptism Which shews they were not counted actually church-members but such as were designed to be believers and so as it were seekers for Faith and Baptism and consequently church-members onely in expectation 2. I argue from the common received definitions of the visible Church Artic. 19. of the Church of England The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men In the answer of the Assembly to the reasons of the seven dissenting brâ—thren p 48. of the Edition 1644. the first praecognitum is this The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the saith of Christ unto the unity thereof From which union there ariseth unto every one such a relation unto and dependance upon the catholick Church as parts have to the whole Dr. John Rainold 2 d. concl The Church of Christ betokeneth a company called out from among the multitude of other men to life everlasting through faith in Christ Jesus Ball trial of Separ pag. 296. ch 13. The Church is a society of the faithfull Hudson vindic c. 1. p. 12. The universal Church is the whole company of visible believers throughout the whole world ch 6. sect 3 127. The Church visible is called entitive not because of the inward grace which is essential to an invisible member but from the reception and embracing the Christian catholick faith which is essential to a visible believer Mr. B. himself plain Script c. part 1. ch 26. The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called 〈◊〉 of the world Hence I argue All that are of the visible Church Christian are faithfull called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the faith of Christ visible believers receiving and embracing the Christian catholick faith This is proved from the definitions of the Church and positions received And it is clear in reason the Church being an aggregate as a flock of sheep a heap of stones as it follows therefore every part of the flock is a sheep every part of the heap a stone so every part of the Church a believer But no infant is such Ergo. In this very manner doth Guliel Apollonii considerat controv cap. 1. pag. 8. argue Thus almost all the famous reformed Divines do affirâ— the matter of a visible Church to be men outwardly called professing the faith of Christ. For they define it a company of men called out by an outward calling or preaching of the word and communication of Sacraments to the worship of God and to celebrate Ecclesiastical society among themselves To this Mr. M. in his Defence part 3. sect 3. pag. 113. saith I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Jews did include their infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members Answ. Mr. M. should have shewed who and in what words of their definitions Protestant Writers include the infants of professors That some of them especially of late have asserted infants of believers to be a part of the visible Church I grant But I think Mr. M. cannot make it good that the Elder Protestant Writers did include them in their definitions of the visible Church I have produced some of the later who have so framed their definitions as that infants must be excluded And if any do include them they erre from the Scripture which never accounted them visible Christian Church members as is proved before And Sect. 51. of this Part of the Review doth sufficiently shew the Christian Church visible to have another call and constitution from the Jewish and that no person is a member of the Christian Church visible by natural generation of a believer but by profession of faith Wherefore Mr. M. saith I adde also Baptism now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answ. That circumcision was a profession of the Christian faith either explicite in Elder proselites or implicit in infants circumcision doth not appear The Apostles speech Gal. 5.2 3. and the tenet of the Jewish doctors Acts 15.1 5. is to the contrary Baptism after a verbal profession of faith by the baptised being his act is a real though implicit profession of the christian faith it being used by the baptised to declare his putting on Christ and so a signe of
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
order of Nature is inverted To all these arguments against infants visible Christian-Churchmembership this one may be added That there is neither example rule nor hint in all the New Testament of their admission into the Church or ordering in it or care of the Elders and Officers of the Church for them as members nor any other sign that Christ would have them reckoned as visible members in the Christian Church which is a strong presumption against it I know none that hath disputed for it so much as Mr. B. I will therefore go on to examine what he saith SECT LIII Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he asserts whereby the point is stated THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church now Printed in his book of Baptism ch 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be and he denying it was that of circumcision urged him often to tell me what it was which he would not which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been After in my Praecursor I again told him I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews no universal law or ordinance for it To which what elusory reply he made is shewed in the second Part oâ— this Review sect 2. pag 8 9. Which moved me being then upon the examining of his 4th and 5th ch from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him Sir Not finding yet that Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is Yours as is meet April 3. 1655. John Tombes The next morning I received from him this Letter directed to me Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sence of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinance or Law of God that infants should be Churchmembers is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that infants were Churchmembers as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these and not directly of a precept Secondly the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit and this is the work of a law or precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these For you cannot imagine that any infant had the blessing without a grant or promise that 's impossible nor that any parents lay under a duty without an obliging law for that 's as impossible Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolâ—ed in both these and so yeeld that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but Whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said then is said yet I shall think it needless till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you proved to be reversed Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts while you confess in general that such a promise and preeept there is by vertue of which infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church for Christs Church it was even his univeâ—sal visible Church Still remember that I take the word law not strictly for a precept onely but largely as comprehending â—oth promise and precept and I have already shewed you both and so have others So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness I am willing to second yoâ— in viz. that at the age yoâ— desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ and their resolution to be 〈◊〉 But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here then to spend my time to prove that no infants of believers are within Christs visible Church that is are no infant Disciples infant Christians infant Churchmembers I know no glory it will bring to Christ nor comfort to man nor see I now any appearance of truth in it I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy and that I was dedicated so soon to God and not left wholly in the Kingdome and power of the Devil They that despise this mercy or account it none or not worth the accepting may go without it and take that which they get by their ingratitude And I once hoped that much less then such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers or at least the preventing of others Apostacy which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you then again to write against rebaptizing or for Infant-baptism Sir I remain your imperfect brother knowing but in part yet loving the truth Rich. Baxter Being the same day to return home yet loth to be put off thus I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter this also to him Sir 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 visible Church 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
were visible members of the Church universal in that they were of the Church Jewish therefore they are in the Christian properly so called contradistinct to the Jewish Which speech I use as commonly Divines do because though the Jewish Church were Christs Church yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the dayes of the Apostles Acts 11.26 we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called that is which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching nor Moses in the Christian Church nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church as Aegypt though in Africa and Persia though in Asia yet are not said to be in Asia the less or Africa propria Mr. B. proceeds Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that it was not onely of the Jewes Commonwealth that infants were members of but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Answ. As yet I do not finde it proved that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth What is said about it sect 43. may be there seen by the Reader Moreover saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Churchmembers in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Commonwealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. Answ. Abrahams family and Isaacs and Jacobs were a Common-wealth although they were but small they had government within themselves Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself Gen. 14.14 Isaac made a league as a Prince coâ—ordinate Gen. 26.31 so did Jacob Gen. 31.53 These with other acts shew they were an independent Commonwealth 2. Saith Mr. B. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to bee members of their Commonwealth yet ceased not to bee of the Church Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews as they were of the Church both de jure and de facto they acknowledging themselves to be of that people and to aâ—here to their laws although somewhat restrained of their liberty as a captivated imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republique to which he hath not access 3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Commonwealth Nor the Sichemites Answ. The contrary is true as concerning the Sichemites is shewed before 4. Saith he Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Commonwealth Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members 5. Saith he The children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jewes Commonwealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Answ. Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary will be any thing but more words without proof SECT LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers by Promise or Precept as Mr. B. teacheth MR. B. proceeds To the 4th Qu. I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-engaging and devoting them to God and so entering them solemnly Churchmembers And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some infants and actually conferred it where his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terme Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sâ—gne of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a signe of Gods will de jure because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debiro of some due 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit to dâ—fference it from precepts which onely determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here is in opposition to what I said in my 2d Leâ—ter I confess infants were by Gods fact of takiâ—g the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Churchmembers that is of the Congregation of Israel and in my 3d. I explaiâ— my self a promise conferriâ—g infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring into Covenant which confers the benefit which were his own words in his first Letter so that if we prove by any other grâ—nt or deed of gift physical or moral which is not a promise of it by which it is conferred or by any Law which is not such a prâ—cept he contradicts not my speech and so disputes not ad idem Which whether he do or no will be perceived by examining what follows Having thus saith he explained the terms I prove the proposition If infants Churchmembership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to bee their God and to take them for his people to bee brought so near him and to bee 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 Answ. I do not deny it but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally or connexively For men may be visible Church-members and yet not have all this benefit and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Churchmembers Hypocrites may be visible Churchmembers yet not be Gods covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him c. And some believing Saints that are dumb may have all this and yet not be visible Churchmembers Mr. B. adds If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way Answ. I should but I would add that to bee the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Churchmembers Cornelius and his house were visible Churchmembers yet not the
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the infant seed of them out of Gods Church And wel they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Sem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal. 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Sem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Answ. I grant that not onely the person of Shem but his posterity were blessed nor do I deny God was their God nor that their infant seed was in Gods Church But this doth not prove their visible Churchmembership in infancy but rather their invisible Churchmemship for that is imported by the phrase of being their God as Mr. Ainsworths exposition intimates God was God to Jacob in his mothers womb yet he was not then a visible but an invisible Church-member Moreover saith Mr. B. in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimatâ—â— First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Sem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that pâ—ople begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Sem now they were the tents of Sem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have tâ—e same sort of members or materials and therefore infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Sems tents had infant Churchmembers for the Jewes Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Sems tents Ergo. Answ. That the tents of Sem note the Jewish people is not improbable But then it is as certain that they are so called not from what they were in Sems days at least not what they were when Noah prophesied but what they were to be afterwards when they were formed to be a peculiar people and they are Sems tents because they descended from him And this is clear even from what Mr. B. and all grant that what is here said was accomplished in the posterity of Sem Japhet and Cham. And therefore it followes not that if the Jewish people had infants Churchmembers visible it must be so in Sems dayes because they are termed Sems tents sith they are so termed from their discent not from the state of the Church in Sems time Nevertheless if it bee granted that Sems tents are the Church of God in Sems family in his days it will rather prove it to note the invisible Church then the visible For the dwelling in the tents of Sem in Mr. Bs. and their sense whom he follows is by faith and so the tents of Sem must note the invisible Church of true believers of whom God is God as he was of Sem the Israel of God as they are termed Gal. 6.16 not the Jewish Church visible and they were joyned by perswasion and therefore not infants who were to dwell in Sems tents and consequently infants visible Churchmembership is not hence proved And to Mr. Bs. argument I answer by granting the conclusion if by Sems tents be meant the invisible Church if the Jewish people the minor is denied He goes on thus Yet further let it here bee noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applieth the word dwell to Japhet then to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleered at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Sem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joint heyrâ— and of the same body and joint partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition wall being broken down c. Eph. 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Sems posterity should bee cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Sems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Sems infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his infant seed bee cast or left out So that here is a promise of infant Churchmembership unto the Gentiles in these words Answ. For my part for ought I yet discern Mr. Nicholas Fuller his exposition in his â—d Book of his Miscellanies Theological ch 4. seems more right then that which Mr. B. and many other Expositors follow to wit thus God shall enlaâ—ge the coasts of the posterity of Japhet in Asia Europe and America and God shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is Christ or God manifested in the flesh shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is among the Jews being of their stock as it is John 1.14 and Canaan shall be servant to the Israelites and the posterity of Japhet as the Canaanites Egyptians Carthaginians and other people of Cham have been being conquered by Joshua Alexander the great the Romans and other people Nor do I see how Mr. Bs. interpretation can be right sith when Japhet was perswaded to dwell in Sems tents Chams posterity also were perswaded and Canaan was no more a servant in a spiritual sense no nor so much as Sems tents the Jewish people nor were the Gentiles perswaded to dwell in Sems tents that is in the Jewish Church visible but it was quite dissolved and they a separate Church from them And therefore it is most manifestly false that the children of Japhet must dwell in Sems tents that is the same visible Church Jewish and therefore the inference is wrong there are infant visible members in the Gentile Church Christian yea sith according to Mr. Bs. own exposition the Gentiles were by the perswasion of the Gospel as it is Ephes. 3.6 of the same body none of the Gentiles were of the same body but those who were perswaded by the Gospel which cannot be said of infants and therefore the contrary follow from Mr. Bs. own exposition that infants were not to be visible Christian Churchmembers SECT LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22. WE come next saith Mr. B. to the promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of infants to be members of the
be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant yea the Apostle concludes and proves Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. That all the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not comprehended in that promise and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers câ—n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7 and precept v. 9.10 9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this maâ—ter that in the great promise Gen. 12.3 the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth all the families of the earth shall be blessed as the Heb. Samar Arabic or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised and so a Gospel blessing Ergo the Syriac adds and in thy seed and the Arab. hath by thee And the Apostle fully testifieth that So that as tribes kindreds families do most certainly comprehend the infants and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ. Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3 is not visible Churchmembership which may be without justification but justification as the Apostle expresly expounds it Gal. 3.8 which may be without visible Church-membership Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation nor every one of a tribe or kindred as it is Acts 3.25 but the elect and believers of each nation tribe or kindred as the Apostle doth both v. 7. 9. shew terming them that are blessed those that are of faith Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain the promise being not of visible Churchmembership nor to nations families kindreds entirely nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such but to so many of all nations kindreds and families as are believers or elect Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families and this promise without apparent violence to the Text. 10. Saith he Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision so they are two distinct things and as the sign is here commanded de novo so the thing signified I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant is commanded with it though not de novo as a thing now beginning as the sign did So that here is in Circumcision not onely a command to do the circumcising outward act but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people So that here are two distinct duties concurrent â—he one external newly instituted the other internal not newly instituted And therefore the former may cease and yet the later stand and it 's no proof that the later Covenant engagement of infants to God is ceased because the sign of Circumcision is ceased no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin or that women were not Churchmembers separated engaged dedicated to God in infancy because they were not circumcised And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17. Answ. I do indeed but not such as Mr. B. should produce a promise of infants visible Churchmembership and a precept of their entring unrepealed there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed As for his discourse of a duty of engaging separating to God and dedicating which is internal and not instituted de novo it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were is it any thing to the purpose For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself infants are visible Churchmembers afore it yea without it nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it but by an outward sign as he himself determines part 1. ch 4. of Baptism And this sure is now Baptism which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents for then they should be Ministers of the Seals which he counts one of my six errours I never denied an internal duty of faith prayer vowing c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God prayer for them is practised by me in publick but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers or admissable by Baptism He adds And when I consider the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy then that she was entred afterwards at age or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her Answ. What in the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah Mr. B. observes which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy I know not There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother and Rachel his daughters Idols as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive that either in that house there was no Church of God or at best a very impure one though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob then the daughters of the Canaanites whom Esau chose Mr. B. adds And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed not onely in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth of which before but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers For Gen. 22.16 17 18. it 's thus alledged because thou hast done this thing c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice And Gen. 26.3 4 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac and the same reason assigned because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my commandments my statutes and my laws How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing I am not determining but taking the words as I find them in general I may conclude that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some
because he would not as intending a new frame where infants could have no place but because they would not and so cast out themselves and their infants Certainly it is the joy of the formerly desolate Gentiles that they shall have many more children then she that had an husband and not fewer Gal. 4.25 26 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise even that promise which extended to the infants with the parents Gal. 4.28 Answ. I have examined all that Mr. B. saith in his answer to the 8th question and do profess that I finde no promise no not in Gen. 3.15 of infants visible Churchmembership or any precept but that of circumcision Gen. 17. which Mr. B. confesseth to be repealed in respect of the outward act and for the dedicating of a childe to God by prayer to God to sanctifie it or vow to bring it up for God if God give life c. or adjuration that they should cleave to God left in writing or any other way upon record I still allow it and so need prove no repeal So that in truth I see no reason Mr. B. should expect that I should perform his task of proving a repeal of that which is not but that he should make good the task I impose on him to prove such a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise or precept unrepealed which I expect to be done at latter Lammas And to his confident speeches I reply Sure I am from Luk. 2.34 Joh. 9.39 that Jesus Christ came that many of the Jewish Church might be left or cast out of his Church from Matth. 28.19 and other places before alledged that he intended to leave all infants out of his visible Church since his comming in the flesh though he were an infant head of the Church that though he died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11.52 yet hee intended not to gather them into a visible Church national comprehending infants that he preached not to any infants nor by his Disciples baptised any of them that it is false which Mr. B. saith that he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea even the national Church that then was unto himself as the true head as his visible Church from Matth. 28.19 Markâ—6 â—6 15 16. and the course he John Baâ—tist and the Apostles followed that he did intend a new frame of his Church visible where infants could have no place that Hierusalem which is above the Covenant of the Gospel had more children in the Gentile Churches then the Covenant of the Law in the Jewish Church though infants were not visible members in the Christian Church as they were in the Jewish that the promise meant Gal 4.28 is not a proâ—ise to a believer and his natural seed of visible Church-membership much less to every visible professour and his seed but a promise of righteousness and blessing and the spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe as is plain from Gal. 3.7 8 9 11 14 16 18 21 22 29. But Mr. B. hath yet more work for me Before I end saith he I shall be boâ—d to put two or three questions to you out of your last Letter Qu 1. didâ—o â—o nomine cease to be Churchmembers though they forsook not God â—nd so of the infants if they were sold in infancy If you affirm it then prove it If you deny it then infants might bee Churchmembers that weâ—e not of the Commonwealth Answ. Such servants and infants were members of the Jewish Commonwealth as they were of the Church in right undoubtedly in fact if they owned the Jews God and Moses Laws and submitted to the Senate of Elders so far as they knew and could be permitted if they did not though they forsook not God yet they were neither of the Jewish Church nor Commonwealth as Cornelius Acts 10th was not of the Jewish Church or policy None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Commonwealth even then when they were violently held under a forraign power as when they were under the Chaldean Persian Greek and Roman Empires they did submit to both though with much reluctancy Qu. 2. If as you say it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off or not who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem which came to be a Patriarchal seat Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jewes Churchmembers in infancy If no then it was somewhat else then unbelief that broke them off Answ. The believing Jews were not broken off from the people of God but from the Jewish people or Church national which rejected Christ these believing Jews continued a famous Church after some time of publishing the Gospel and the Jews presecuting the faith sepated from the Jewish Church not having infants Churchmembers and they were broken off from the Jewish Church national not by unbelief but by faith in Christ to which they did adhere and could not bee conjoyned to the Jewish Church without rejection of Christ. Mr. B. addes If yea then Qu. 3. Whether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews but to bring in Gentiles breaking down the partition wall and making of two one Church would have such a Linsey Woolsy Church of party colours or several forms so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have infant members and the Church at Rome should have none Jews infants should be members and not Gentiles Answ. Christ came to cast out the unbelieving Jews not from the Jewish Church national they continued still in it but from the invisible Church of true believers which was in that nation to which was joyned the Gentile Church of true believers which were all of one sort whether at Rome or Hierusalem to wit all that had one spirit one faith one baptism not one infant in the visible Church Christian either at Rome or Hierusalem Qu. 4. If unbelief brake them will not repentance graff them in And so should every repenting believing Jews infants be Churchmembers Answ. Faith and repentance will ingraff every penitent believer into the Church invisible the profession thereof will ingraff them into the visible Church but not their infants though the believer bee a Jew Qu 5. Was not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual and gathered in a spiritual way Answ. The invisible was the visible Jewish national was not Qu. 6. How prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame that infants were members or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age Answ. I say not that it was a blemish but that it was a more imperfect state of the Church then in that and other reâ—ards The later question is answered Sect. 50 51 52. before Qu. 7. In
by Baptism to them as the best preservative against it For my part I think Mr. Bs. and other Ministers maintaining infant Baptism do give most advantage and encouragement to them both to inveigh against them as men that will not yeeld to truth but teach a manifest errour and therefore not to be heard and then Mr. Saltmarsh and others delusions about water baptism as now ceased living in the spirit expectation of it no true Ministry now without the spirit as the Apostles had and such like conceits driving them off from the Churches of the baptized they are caught by those emissaries from Rome and other agents of Satan with that Divelish delusion God justly suffering Satan to delude them with lies because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved 2 Thes. 2.10 So that I have as much cause to think quakerism the fruit of Mr. Bs. ways as of mine own Nor will it be any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when such a one as Mr. B. shall continue to load me with false accusations with which I have many wayes shewed my self not chargeable and not onely he but also Mr. Robert Baillee in his Dissuasives Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena's and others shall in English and Latine heap so many untruths on godly persons because dissenters while they lived to shew the falsity of them Qu 6. Have you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred of the perverting of so many souls opening them such a gap to schism contempt of the Ministry and Apostacy destroying a hopefull reformation that cost so dear or weakening our hands in the work and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes and list themselves among you as the hopefull party to befriend their cause hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane and setling them again on their drâ—gs when many once began to shake O what a Church might we have had and were likely to have had had it not been for the Separatists and you And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these Have these things toucht your heart Answ. How far these things have toucht my heart I must give an account to God my Judge and not to Mr. B. who with his fraternity I perceive would pass a heavy doom on mee and scarce award me a place in earth or heaven And no marvel if I were so pernicious an instrument as he describes me But may I not require Mr. B. to shew me by what actions I have done any of these things Is Mr. B. allowed to accuse in generals and not to instance in particulars may he without control accuse and not prove May he have liberty as in a Chancery bill hath been wont to put in all he can imagine whether true or false Is not this the manner of quakers and scolds Are my answers often made of no avail to clear my self but that Mr B. will still be imputing that to me which my writings and courses do absolve me from No marvel Dr. Owen said of him Appendix to his Vindic Evang. pag. 5. A man that doth not know him as I do would by his writings take him to be immitis immisericors a very Achilles that will not pardon a man in his grave but will take him up and cut him in a thousand pieces I tell Mr. B. plainly it is not my doctrine but Mr. Bs. which perverts souls I mean his doctrine of Baptism and Churchmembership besides his other errours that neither my doctrine nor practise open a gap to Schism but tend to the contrary unity of Baptism being one of the bonds of Christians Ephes. 4.4 the restoring of which is the regular way to union Mr. B. by his violent opposing it and the assertors of it doth really open a gap to Schism I open no gap to contempt of the Ministry but they themselves do it by opposing truth and other wayes Apostacy from Christ or godliness is no fruit of my doing but is rather caused by those that urge persons to renounce the right Baptism and Communion of the baptised of which I fear Mr. B. is guilty A right reformation according to Gods word cannot be while infant Baptism continues in seeking to destroy it I promote reformation Mr. B. by maintaining it destroyes reformation and by proposals shews his inclination to persecution which if I hinder I rejoyce I weaken not Mr. Bs. hands in preaching the Gospel but strengthen them if I enervate his errour I am glad he hath most unbrotherlike endeavoured to weaken my hands and to stop my mouth I fill not adversaries mouths with scorn of him but he hath thrown as much dirt as hee could on me in his writings I entice not Jesuites and Friers and if they creep in among those of our judgement is it any more then Jude v. 4. speaks of in his time Can Mr. B. say they are not among his party I harden no Papists but shew their bottome errour nor prophane persons but take the right way to undeceive them they that maintain their infant Baptism settle them on their dregs I mean their carnal presumption by which they take themselves to bee Christians without knowledge of Christ. The Church that was likely to have been Mr. Bs. way may be discerned by the Elders by the Scottish Church Mr. Bs. Church at Kederminster the associated Ministers in Wocestershire and their Churches Confusion is too great for want of restoring Christs order more would be if Mr. Bs. way were imposed and no small oppression on tender consciences and dissenting brethren I may say oh what a Church might wee have had if it had not been for Mr. B. and other such violent Paedobaptists as he is opposing Christs way Qu. 7. Is a transeunt fact making infants Churchmembers without Law promise or Covenant a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things and run such hazards as you have done or is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience durst make all this havock and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence When you should prove to us the revocation of infants Churchmembership to tell us that they â—ad it onely by a transeunt fact Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on Sir my conscience witnesseth that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you but some compassion on you do not scorn it and more on your poor followers and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled Answ. I venture on no such horrid things nor run such hazards as Mr. B. imagines nor is the transeunt fact that I build on but Christs institution Matth. 28.19 though that transeunt fact I assigne is sufficient
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
The dedication of the firstâ—born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him and yet he can give no more Scripture or reason for it then I can for this that the Churchmembership of infants was but to endure till Christs comming in the flesh To omit what I have already argued in the 50 51 52. sections before in my apprehension the Apostle doth plainly teach Gal. 3.16 to the end that the Churchmembership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham continued onely till faith came that is till Christ was exhibited and believed on as already come in the flesh that now all are children of God Abrahams seed by faith that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile the Jews natural birth brings not him in the Church nor the Gentiles uncircumcision excludes him that so many as are admitted into the Church by Baptism do put on Christ and consequently the Churchmembership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth and there is no Churchmembership but by faith in Christ. And this I might further confirm from Gal. 5.6 Col. 2.11 12. 3.11 And to these Scriptures I add this reason The course that God took in severing the Jewish nation from other people circumcising the males keeping the distinction of tribes and the inheritances in the families and the genealogies so exactly till Christ came ordering the tax of Augustus at the time of Christs birth and after his ascension scattering the Jews out of their land overturning their Commonwealth confounding their pedigrees taking to himself another Church in another way by preaching the Gospel and baptizing believers and none else doth plainly evidence to me that infants Churchmembership was but an introduction type shadow fore-runner to Christs manifestation in the flesh and to cease as John Baptists office did when Christ was exhibited and fully manifested to the world And accordingly Mr. Bs. questions are answered the first that it was heard of before that upon the comming of Christ believers Church-membership was to succeed to birth-Churchmembership To the second that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them yet by his comming he alters Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith The third and fourth are answered by setting down my apprehension and the Scriptures and reason of it The fifth I answer affirmatively the sixth negatively The seventh that men and women are not Churchmembers now by birth any more then infants and in that respect the nature of Churchmembership is the same in both To the eighth the Apostle did speak of it in the places before cited To the ninth the silly comforter knows no reason why the Jews broken off should be comforted but thinks it was matter of comfort to the believing Jews that in stead of infants visible Churchmembership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy the body in stead of the shadow the Sun risen in stead of the Day-star Mr. B. goes on thus But let us consider a little what is the Church Is it not the body of Christ Even all the Church since Adams fall and the making of a new Covenant is one body of Christ Even the visible Church is his visible body as 1 Cor. 12. and many Scriptures fully shew therefore even the branches not bearing fruit are said to be in him that is in his visible body Joh. 14.1 2 3. Now doth Christ break off all infants from his body that he may come in the flesh to be a greater mercy to them What 's that but to be a greater mercy then himself who is the life and welfare of the body Answ. The invisible Church is all one body of Christ the visible hath had such differences that one part to wit those who feared God and prayed continually Acts 10 2. yet had no communion with the other but were counted unclean and shunned because uncircumcised Acts 11 2 3. The Church of the circumcised which was by natural birth is now broken off upon Christs comming and another Church by faith of all nations is raised Acts 10.34 35. in which infants are not till they believe who though they are of the invisible Church or body of Christ by election and invisible operation of the spirit yet are not of the visible till they profess faith in Christ as already come in the flesh who was the great mercy promised to Abraham Joh. 8.56 in which he rejoyced although a great part of his natural seed were broken off and this was a greater mercy then was before exhibited although then Christ was the life and welfare of the body Again saith Mr. B it seems by this Mr. T. thinks that excommunication is a great mercy If all the Jews infants had been excommunicate or cast out of the Church by God himself it were no more then Christ did in mercy never bringing them into any other Church in stead Answ. Nothing said by me gives any occasion to this imputation Excommunication if just I count a curse but the non taking of infants into the visible Church Christian hath nothing of a curse in it it being onely an act of God according to his Soveraignty who had liberty to appoint who should be of his Church who not Against this strange fiction saith Mr. B. I argued thus If ordinarily God shew not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it then it is not a greater mercy or for the parties greater good to be put out then to be in But ordinarily God sheweth not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it Therefore it is not for their greater good nor in greater mercy to be put out To this Mr. T. answered nothing Answ. What need I when I grant the conclusion Mr. B. makes a strange fiction of his own as if I thought excommunication to be cast out or put out of the Church a great mercy and held infants were excommunicated cast or put out of the Church Which is far from me or any thing I say who do not assert them put out by any judicial sentence but by a free act of Gods soveraignty left out for reasons best known to himself but in part revealed to us Mr. B. adds I argued also thus â—f those that are out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ then it is not to them a great mercy to be out of the Church But those out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ therefore it cannot be to them a greater mercy To this Mr. T. answered that it is a greater mercy to infants since Christ to be out of the Church then before to be in it and that they have as much assurance of
mercy from Christ now as then he should say more Answ. This answer was right infants now are in a better case though not visible Christian churchmembers then they were when in the Jewish Church in which they were circumcised and obliged to Moses law and they have as much assurance of mercy from Christ to wit righteousness and life as then yea more though I need not say so in contradiction to Mr. Bs. minor then before sith Christs exhibition in the flesh is a greater assurance of saving mercy then was before To which saith Mr. B. I replied thus If those infants which were in the Church before Christ had God engaged in an oath and Covenant to be their God and to take them for his peculiar people and those infants out of the Church since Christ have no such thing then they before Christ in the Church had more assurance of mercy then those out of the Church since Christ But the former is true as I proved out of Deut. 29.10 11 12. upon which text what vain altercations there were and what words were used against the express Letter of the text you shall see in the relation of the Dispute if â— be called to publish it Answ. For my part I shall not consent that Mr. B. publish the relation of the Dispute having found his dealing so injurious to me in that which he hath already done and his partiality towards his opinion and party I have looked over two such relations of the Dispute as I could get and I finde in them that I did deny the minor and when Mr. B. alledged Deut. 29.10 11 12. to prove it I did distinguish of being God in respect of saving benefits and thus God is engaged in Covenant to be God to infants now no visible Churchmembers as he was then to wit to the elect onely or in respect of outward advantages such as were peculiar to the nation of the Jews as that they should possess Canaan have Gods worship and presence with them in a more special manner then other people Christ to come out of that people c. as Rom. 9.4 5. the Apostle reckons them and in this respect it was granted that infants in the Church before Christ had God so engaged and that neither infants out of the Church Christian no nor believers in it no nor all believers afore Christ such as Cornelius had God so engaged and that in this respect the oath of God was meant appeared from v. 13. which saith thus that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob which appears to be meant of their setling in Canaan and their prosperous state there as many places evince where it is mentioned particularly Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 c. besides many other passages in the same speech of Moses 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 From which passages it is as evident as the light that the meaning Deut. 29.10 11 12. was this that God did bring into Covenant by Moses the chief standing for the rest the whole nation of Israel that they might for themselves and their posterity unborn binde them to observe the lawes of Moses given in Horeb and thereby be established a people to God and he might be a God to them in setling keeping and prospering them in Canaan if they did obey Now Mr. B. asserted that God did covenant with all the little ones and others there present to be their God and that in respect of spiritual benefits and to that end urged Deut. 30.6 which he made conditional and to other then the elect Against which I urged that to circumcise the heart is the same with writing Gods lawes in the heart Heb. 8.10 which Dr. Twiss rightly concludes to be absolute and to the â—lect onely and that to assert it to be conditional is Pelagianism and I desired the Auditors to take notice of Mr. Bs. assertion in that thing I confess I had not time to collect and to produce the texts here mentioned which was one reason why I was still averse from extemporary verbal disputes but this was the substance of that â—â—â—rcation which Mr. B. cals vain and saith words were used against the express letter of the text Concerning which although I will not undertake to justifie all I then said yet the answer I then gave I stil avouch as right and conceive Mr. Bs. assertion of circumcising the heart to love the Lord to belong to other then the elect and to be conditional to be very erroneous and refer the reader to Mr. Bs. own words in answer to Mr. Bedford in the Friendly accommodation pag. 361 362. to discern the errour of it Mr. B. saith I further add out of Ephes. 2.12 Those that were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel were strangers to the Covenant of promises and without hope and without God and there is no Scripture speaketh of delivering any from this sad state but Churchmembers therefore sure it can be no mercy to be put out of the Church Answ. Though the conclusion were granted it hurts not me who do not asserr the putting infants out of the Church who were in but the not taking of them into the visible Church Christian. However the text speaks of the Ephesians who were uncircumcised in the flesh v. 11. but doth not say that all that were uncircumcised or aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel were without God in the world For it is certain that Cornelius and many other Proselytes uncircumcised were not without God in the world and therefore persons might then have Christ though not be visible Churchmembers and if Mr. B. say that none but visible members in the Christian Church have Christ God hope he must damn all abortives and still born children of believers and all those that are converted and shew it not as dumb persons on their death-bed or any other way in articulo mortis Again saith he God added to the Church such as should bee saved therefore to be cast or put out of the Church is no known way of mercy Answ. The conclusion is granted and yet the text proves not that all who are added to the Church shall be saved or that all that shall be saved are or shall be added to the Church visible Again saith hee the Church is the family of Christ even the visible Church is called the house of God 1 Tim. 3.15 But it is no known way of mercy to be out of Gods house and family Answ. I grant it and yet a person may be in Christs house and a temple to him and not a visible Churchmember Again saith he the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth therefore no mercy
to be taken off it Answ. I grant it yet doubt whether the Church be termed so 1 Tim. 3.15 and not rather either the mystery of Godliness v. 16. as Cameron de Eccles. c. de Eccles. durati de Eccl. Const. or Timothy as Gataker Cinni lib. 2. c. 20. Again saith Mr. B. the Church visible is the visible body of Christ but it is no mercy to be separated from Christs body Answ. True yet it may be a mercy in respect of the yoke of the law not to be in the visible Church Jewish yea by accident it may be a mercy to be separated from a visible Church Christian as when the Church is tyrannous in its rule or unsound in the doctrine taught to it Again saith he the Church visible is Christs visible Kingdome But it is no mercy to be out of Christs Kingdome therefore it is no mercy to be out of the Church Answ. The same which was made to the former objection is to this Lastly saith Mr. B. Do but read all those hundred glorious things that are spoken of the City of God all those high praises that are given to the Jewish Church in Deut. and the Psalms and all the Scriptures who is like unto thee O Israel c. And then read all the far more glorious things that are spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ And if after this you can still believe that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church and never take them into the other and that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fiâ—lier save them out of his Church then in it I say if after reading the foresaid passages you can believe this for my part I give you up as forlorn and look upon your understandings in this as forsaken by God and not onely void of spiritual illumination but common reason and pray the Lord to save the understandings of all his people from such a plague and to rescue yours before you go further Answ. I say not that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church nor that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy as if he could fitlier save them out of his Church then in it but that God never took them into his visible Church Christian and that Christs comming in the flesh is a mercy recompensing the visible Churchmembership Jewish by birth when God braâ—e off that people from the olive for their unbelief and that Christ can and doth as fitly save infants though not in the visible Church Christian as he did when they were in the visible Church Jewish and yet fear not Mr. Bs. direful omen and sad despair of my understanding but have as good hopes of mine and my followers understandings in this thing as of Mr. Bs. and his followers and leave it to the intelligent to judge whether we are void not onely of spiritual illumination but common reason I have read what is said of Israel and yet think it a mercy now not to bee a viâ—â—ble Churchmember in it no not though it were now as it was in the best state under David Solomon c. And I conceive Mr. B. hath read many hundreds of as glorious things spoken of Moses Law as of the Church and yet I think Mr. B. counts it a mercy now not to be under it I finde the glorious things spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ meant all or most of it as it contains that part which is the invisible Church of true believers or elect persons And I judge God hath dealt mercifully with infants if he put them into the invisible Church though hee put them not into the visible if not either their being in the visible benefits them not or aggravates their condemnation Mr. B. proceeds thus But let us see what Mr. T. answers to this in his Sermon which upon deliberation hee afterward preached to confute my arguments and therefore â—annoâ— lay the blame upon his unpreparedness And truly in my judgement he doth here plainly throw down his weapons and give up the whole cause though not directly confessing his errour he is not yet so happy I were best give you his own words lest I be thought to wrong him they are these As for those petty reasons if it be done it must bee in mercy or judgement I say in mercy in respect of the whole Catholike Church now Christ being come and wee haâ—ing a more spiritual churchstate then they had their churchstate was more carnal and fleshly and agreeable to their time of minority It is in mercy that it is taken away And as for that exception It cannot be taken away in mercy unless some priviledge be to them in stead of it We answer It is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge be to them So far Mr. Ts. words I confess I never heard a cause more plainly forsaken except a man should say flatly I have erred or I recant 1. He much altereth the terms of my argument as you may see by it before The argument is thus It can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken away from them except it be to give a greater in its stead But here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked or taken away To call these petty reasons is the onely strength of Mr. T. his answer For I pray you mark 1. Hee never denâ—ed the major proposition that it can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken from them except they may have a greater in stead He could not deny this with any shew of reason For otherwise if it be a mercy meerly to deprive the creature of mercy then wee shall turn hell into heaven and make it the greatest place of mercies because none are deprived of mercy so much as they no nor of this particular mercy for none are further removed from being members of the Church then the damned Answ. It is true finding the boastings concerning Mr. Bs. dispute Janu. 1. 1649. to be many after my return from Leimster to which place I was then designed and where I was Janu. 6. I did though without any copy of the disputation or arguments in writing which I could not obtain from Mr. B. as well as my memory could bear them away in the close of my Afternoons Sermon Jan. 13. at Bewdley recite and refute his arguments in the disputation Wherein it is true I was somewhat more deliberate then in the dispute yet for want of the arguments in writing I could not then give so full and exact an answer to his arguments as had been requisite nor perhaps shall now to this because Mr. B. doth not plainly set down though requested by me what that benefit priviledge or mercy is which he conceives annexed to infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed But that either
here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership my answer was That in mercy to the whole catholick Church the Jewish infant Church-membership ceased and therefore the infant visible Churchmembership Jewish in mercy ceased To understand his minor it is to be observed that Mr. B. asserts 1. a law or ordinance of infants visible Church-membership antecedent to that of Circumcision 2. That this is by promise and precept 3. That this infant visible Churchmembership essentially contains a right to Gods soveraignty Christs headship favour protection provision and other blessings due from such a Soveraign and head to his members 4. That this belonged not onely to the infants of the Jewish nation but also of believers in all ages 5. That this mercy belonged to the infants of the believers of the Jewish nation when they were made Christians and so could not be in justice taken from them though the nation of the Jews were broken off for unbelief 6. That in mercy it cannot be said to be taken away without a greater mercy to the infants of believrs in stead of it 7. That the comming of Christ in the flesh the extent of the Church over the world through faith the changing of Churchmembership by birth into that by faith and so making the Church more spiritual is not a greater mercy to the infants of Jew believers in stead of that visible Church-membership 8. That without visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church catholick the infants of Jew believers are in worse case then they were in the Jewish Church national On the contrary I deny 1. such a law or ordinance 2. That the Hebrew infant visible Churchmembership was by promise and precept 3. That this visible Churchmembership contained essentially such a right as Mr. B. asserts though it was a mercy in comparison of the state of other nations yet thereto was annexed a heavy yoke of legal impositions the deliverance from which was a mercy and in this respect it was in mercy not continued to believers infants of the Jewish nation 4. That it belonged to any other infants then of the Hebrew people 5. I assert that when the Jewish nation or Hebrew people were broken off for unbelief in Christ visible Churchmembership of infants was in justice taken away from the whole people and consequently from the infants of Jew believers who were onely visible Churchmembers as a part of that nation yet in mercy to them sith their visible Churchmembership in that nation was dangerous to them yea inconsistent with Christianity the Jewish nation being a rebellious and gainsaying people as it was a mercy for Lot to be in Sodom and he was in justice to the place outed and yet in mercy to himself when it was to be destroyed 6. I assert that it might be truly said that the infant Jewish visible Churchmembership may be said to be taken away in mercy â—rom the infants of believers of that nation though no greater mercy were given to those particular infants of the same kind barely in stead of it 7. I assert that it cannot be said to be taken away in justice from infants of believing Gentiles sith it was never granted to any Gentile nation to be Gods visible Church nor were their infants visible Churchmembers except by proselytism they were incorporated into the Jewish people 8. I assert that the not taking in of believing Gentiles infants into the visible Church Christian was not an act judiciary of God as a Judge but Gods free act of soveraignty changing Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith 9. I assert that the comming of Christ in the flesh and the consequents thereof the breaking down the partition wall taking in the Gentiles by faith c. without taking in infants into the visible Church Christian were greater meâ—cies then the Jewish infant Churchmembership which was clogged with legal burdens and was an imperfect state and did abundantly countervail the Jewish infant visible Churchmembership in the best state of that and did bring as much benefit to infants as that relation did 10. That the infants of believing Gentiles no members of the visible Church Christian are not in worse but beâ—ter condition in respect of any real Evangelical blessing then the Hebrew infants were with their Churchmembership 1. Because the spiritual blessings of regeneration in dwelling of the spirit justification remission of sins adoption Gods favour protection provision eternal life are as much assured to them in infancy without visible Churchmembership as they were with it 2. They do actually enjoy sooner these mercies if in the invisible Church without which none ever enjoyed them and in more ample mâ—nner without Jewish visible Churchmembership then they did with it the spirit being now more powred out the Gâ—spel cleared the Châ—rch enlâ—rged onely legal ceremonies and rest in Canaan witâ— prosperity therein being taken away Mr. B. and the reader hereby may fully understand what I deny and what I grant and how I answer this his petty reasoning without yeelding the cause and when he hath refuted these assâ—rtions leâ— him sing his triumph and not as he vainly and insolently doth afore the victory He adds But yet let us follow it further And 1. what means Mr. T. to talk of mercy to others when our question is Whether it be a mercy to themselves to be unchurched 2. â—y this arguing be may prove any thing almost in the world a mercy For all shall work together for good to them that love God Rom. 8.28 And therefore if I should ask him whether it be in mercy to wicked men that God giveth them over to themselves and at last damneth them Mr. T. may thus answer that it is for it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church that is to other men but what is this to the damned So Mr. T. saith It is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church But what is that to infants who are unchurched Answ. 1. What I mean he may if he please discern by what is here said and in what sense infants may be said to be unchurched and how it may be a mercy to them and others 2. The damnation of themselves cannot be a mercy to wicked men when it is a benefit to the elect because it never produceth them good But the mercy to the catholick Church is a mercy to believers infants 1. in that it frees them from legal burthens 2. in that there is a near capacity and probability of the best good for them remaining in their parents or others godly families He adds And what a strange reason is that of Mr. T. to say It is a mercy because their Churchstate was carnal fleshly and agreeable to their minority but ours is spiritual What is this to them that are put out of that carnal Churchstate and kept out of this spiritual Churchstate too If they had been admitted into this better state as no doubt they are then he had said somewhat Else
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
Rom. 11.11 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles the fall of them is the riches of the world the diminishing decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people of which the infants were a part and onely Churchmembers there and while that nation were Gods Church partly through Gods contrivance which was that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off and at last both have mercy in their season Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein If this doctrine be true why may we not expect to be taught that infants must also be cast out of heaven in mercy to the whole catholick Church Answ. Becaâ—se we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholick Church is by breaking off â—he Jewish Church If iâ— be saith he no carnal Churchstate to have infants in heaven why is it a carnal Churchstate which containeth infants in it on earth Answ. That any are infants in heaven it s not likely 2. If there should be yet being fully sanctified they should not be carnal but spiritual and the Church there onely consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Churchmembers by carnal generation the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was and not spiritual by faith as the Scripture makes it Joh. 1.12 13. 3.5 6. Gal. 3.26 27. Again saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have infants kept out of heaven nor no hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth or any hurt to the Church to see them here members Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it their non-visible Christian Churchmembership is a benefit to the Catholike Church in the manner before said because God hath so ordered it But yet saith Mr. B. let us come a little nearer what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters of which sort the Church hath none yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love and that are merciful as their heavenly faâ—her is merciful and who are bound to receive little children in Christs name and who are become as children themselves to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched But such are all true members of the Church and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church of which we are speaking hath no enemies or man-haters It is not true that wee are bound to receive little children in Christs name nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched or that they are all unchurched nor do I think it true thâ—t all true members of the Church visible are such as Mr. B. describes But this I say the non-visible Church-membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe however it seem to the Church But yet nearer saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their children put out of the Church Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children and doth grace increase it and the Scripture encourage it and yet must they take it for a mercy that their children are put out when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection it is a mercy and ought to seem a mercy that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Churchmembership and by consequent their infant visible Churchmembership and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lords supper as the Jews children were to the Passeover Yet further saith he why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did His bloud be on us and our children For their curse is to be broken off from the Church and if that be a mercy the Jews are then happier then I take them to be And how can we then pray that they may be graffed in again Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament much less Evangelical promises made to believing parents for their seed nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit Phil. 2.1 Yea whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children their prosperâ—â—y rest and peace in their dwellings c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate if without sin is rather preferred as more happy 1 Cor 7.14 and the poor and persecuted rather adjâ—dged blessed then the rich and those that live in pâ—ace Matth 5.4 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national but in being not in the Olive that is the Church of true believers but in the national Church Jewish and that they were not broken off from it was their unhappiness and we are to pray not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons 6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out yet it doth not follow that God would do it He is the God of infants as well as of the aged and is mercifull to them as well as others all souls are his He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants And his mercy is over all his works Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh yet he hath not mercy on all flesh all souls are his yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish his mercy is over all his works yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people he is naturally mercifull yet sheweth mercy freely as he will I say not he casteth out all infants of the Church
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
are now no visible churchmembers as was then to the elect now as was then to whom alone it was made then and now And as for mercy answerable to visible churchmembership of infants enough is said here Sect. 64. Mr. B. adds 4. I argue from Rom. 3.1 What advantage hath the Jew and what profit the circumcision much every way c. If the Jew circumcised inchurched infants had much advantage every way and thosâ— without the Church have none then it is better be in their Church then without the Church But the former is plain in the Text therefore the later is certain Answ. The advantage the Jew had was when they were the people of God above them who were heathen infidels not above Christian believers Now it is true that it was better to be in their Church then to be without the Church as heathen infidels and their children were But this doth not prove what is to be proved that the condition of Jews infants in their Church visible is better then of Christian believers infants now no visible Churchmembers Nevertheless the speech of the Apostle is not meant of Jew infants for the instance he gives of committing to them the Oracles of God is not true of the infants and therefore it is denied that Mr. Bs. antecedent is plain in the text in respect of the forepart of it And it is false also that the infants of Christians though not Christian visible churchmembership have no such advantage as the Jews had For in this thing the advantage of the Christians infant is more then of the Jews sith the Scriptures being now more common and better cleared they may sooner know them then the Jews infants could 5. Saith he Again from Rom. 9.4 I argue thus If then to the Iews pertained the adoption the covenants the promises c. but no such thing to them without the Church then it is worse to be out of the Church then to be in it as they were But the former is the words of the Holy Ghost therefore the consequent is certain Answ. The consequence is denied For if this were true it would as well prove it to have been a better condition to be in the visible Church Jewish then then to be in the Christian Church visible now For now those things expressed Rom. 9.4 5. belong not to them who are in the visible Church Christian yea it is now Christ is come the benefit of the Church to be freed from them I mean some of them as the services which were in sacrifices c. the glory which was the Ark the Covenant to wit the Tables of stone the adoption which excluded the Gentiles from being Gods people and concerning the other three the giving of the Law discent from the Fathers Christs consanguinity they are such as cannot be to any other and are all recompensed abundantly by the comming of Christ the gift of the Spirit preaching of the Gospel without infants visible churchmembership And therefore though there be no such thing as those things mentioned Rom. 9.4 5. to them that are out or in the visible Church Christian yet there are better things to Christians which make their condition and theâ—r infants not actually visible churchmembers better then the Jewish churchstate at the best 6. Saith he If it be better to be in Gods house and family then out and in his visible Kingdome then out then it is better to be in the Church though but as the Jews were then out But the former is evident therefore the later Answ. It is true it is better to be in Gods house and family then out and so infants may be though they be not in the Christian Church visible and though they be not in Christs visible Kingdome yet they may be in his invisible which is most truly his Kingdome and house and this estate is better then to be in the Jewish Church visible But it was not better with infants by vertue of their visible churchmembership then it is with believers infants without it sith they are freed from the yoke of bondage the Jews were under and have equal portion if not more of Evangelical grace then they had and therefore the consequence is denied 7. Saith Mr. B. If it be better to be a sanctified peculiar people of God then to be none such but an excluded common unclean people then it is better to be in the Church though but as the Jews were then out of the Church But the former is most certain therefore the lâ—ter The consequence is plain in that all the Church both Jews and Gentiles are properly a peculiar people separated or sanctified to God and so are they still called in the Old Testament and New And therefore those without the Church must needs be an excluded people even as election of some implieth passing by or rejecting of others and therefore are called common and unclean frequently Answ. This being understood of the visible Church it is false that those without the Church visible must needs be an excluded people from God for then all abortives and still-born children persons dying without signs sensible of faith and repentance though before God believers excommunicate persons should bâ— excluded from God And as for Mr. Bs. proof that the Church are properly a peculiar people separated or sanctified to God this cannot be true in reality which must make their condition better but onely of those who are of the invisible also of which infants may be though not of the visible of the rest it is true onely in appearance which makes their condition not better in the Church but worse then of those without sith the odiousness of their hypocrisie provokes God against them the more though cloaked from men by their fair profession 8. Saiâ—h he If God do not usually bestow so many or greater mercies out of his Church as he doth in it then it is worse to be out of the Church then to be in it though but as the Jews were But certainly God useth not to bestow so many or greater mercies out of the Church as in it therefore it is worse to be out then in though but as the Jews Answ. Mr. B. should prove the minor which I deny that God doth not bestow usually so many or greater mercies to infants now not visible Christian churchmembers as he did to infants in the Jewish Church visible For so must his minor be if his conclusion oppose my position which sith he proves not my denial is sufficient answer 9. Saith he If Christ have made larger promises to his Church visible then to any in the world that are not of the Church nay if there be no special promise at all nor scarce common to any without the Church but the conditional upon their comming in then is it worse to be out of the Church then to be so in it But the former is true therefore the later Answ. Mr. B. brings no proof for his minor
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
taken in by a promise nor was the promise or the seal grounded that is made or given by reason of the righteousness of faith to or in those to whom they were made or given Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B. 5. Saith he Inâ—ants were Churchmembers long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth and the â—udicial laws given them And as the Apostle argues the law which was many hundred years after could not make void the promise and so it could not be that this was part of the meerly judicial law Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth and judicial laws given as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Shâ—lah to take their brothers wife Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah concerning Tamar v. 24. before Moses time though then both were compleated Though the law makes not void the promise yet the law of infants visible Churchmembership if there were any such might be meerly judicial 6. Saith he That it is neither a meer judicial nor proper to the Jews appeareth thus That which was proper to the Jews was given to them onely that is onely to Isaac and his seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were intailed But many hundreds were circumcised as Churchmembers among them many infants in Abrahams family before ever Isaac was born and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in The children of Keturah and their children and the children of Ishmael c. were once all Churchmembers let any shew when they were unchurched except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness or let any shew that the same sons of Keturah who must circumcise their sons as Churchmembers while they were in Abrahams family must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family Did God change laws and revoke such mercies and priviledges to the seed of Abraham meerly because of their removing from his house and change of place Who dare believe such fancies without one word of Scripture Remember therefore that it is here plainly proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews Answ. That which waâ— proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac onely and his seed but common to Abraham Isaac and Jacobs family or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews When Ishmael was cast out and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac Gen. 25.6 they were not Churchmembers nor their children no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed Ezra 10. Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit however it seem to us Nor is this conceit a fancy but plain from those Scriptures named and others which still reckon the Ishmaeliâ—es Edomites Ketureans and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Israel as a profane people and so not Churchmembers Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Churchmembers or did it when separated from the Hebrew people So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews but that it is partly natural and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith as he speaks SECT LXIX Mr. B. ch 20. by his 15th arg from infants being once members in the universal visible Church hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed CH. 20. My 15th arg saith he is this If all infants who were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church which was never taken down then certainly their Churchmembership is not repealed But all infants that were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church therefore their Churchmembership is not repealed The consequence is beyond dispute because the universal Church never ceaseth here And in my judgement the whole argument is so clear that were there no more it were sufficient Answ. The very conclusion is so palpably false that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should shew himself so besotted as to prove so inâ—ustriously a thing contrary to sense that the visible Churchmembership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed that is ceaseth For who knows not that Isaac Jacob Moses David with millionâ— more are dead and are now no members in any visible Church If it be said that Mr. B. means the species of infants I reply then he speaks non-sense and false For the species is but one and therefore to â—erm the species which is but one all infants in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church for members are individuals nor is the universal visible Church totum universale which may bee thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches but totum integrale an integral whole consisting of parts existing and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased It is false also that the species an be termed visible For that is visible which may be discerned by sense but sense discerneth not species but individuals If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body as a river whiâ—h conâ—inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel neither will this â—ee for his purpose For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease and other infants succeed 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people to wit the Jews wâ—o had heretofore infants visible churchmembers they are broken off from being Gods visible Church and so the succession of churchmembers in tâ—at people ceaseth and it is that which is denied tâ—at in the other channel to wit the visible Christian Church infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants and if the sense be thus the whole argument is this If infants visible churchmembership be and â—ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish then it is not repealed But infants visible churchmembership is and ought to be taken to be in the christian visible Church as in the Jewish ergo of which I should deny the minor But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false And therefore I answer to his argument if the parenthesis which was never taken down be a part of the antecedent in the major and the sense be this and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not and this be supplied in the minor I dâ—ny the minor if it be not supplied I
severity intimates an inclination or desire to it which is stopped by a contrary inclination whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will 2. It is falsly supposed as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church-membership were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership iâ— as election to eternal life or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership to wit eternal life out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb are abortives or still born And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists that without his visible Churchmembershâ—p infants are damned 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already freedom from the bondage of the law in the powring out of the spirit in the new Covenant c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church it being not out of any defect of mercy in God or deprivation of mercy to them which they may not have without it but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent but by faith not national but of believers of all Nations 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication admission as I have hitherto conceived it beeing the act of the administratour of baptism according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense that God will baptise some infants with water which is a friâ—olous conceit 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him the conclusion should bee rather that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked then to mercy to the godly and their seed For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives and therefore his inference if there were any force in it would concâ—ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly but the preservation of their livâ—s in common calamities and persecutions which it is certain he doth not but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all Eccles. 9.2 Which things being premised thougâ— the minor of M. â—s first syllogism may be well questioned yet waving it I deâ—y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself as if none could know what he doth not He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus Ch 25. The 20th arg I draw from Deut. 28.4 18 3. Those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their body and of Covenant-breakers it is said cursed shâ—lt thou be in the fruit of thy body thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people and thy eyâ— shall look and â—aâ—l with longing for them c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them for they shall go into captivity The argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine The major is undeniable The minor I prove thus The curse on the children Deut. 28. is that they go into captivity Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were or if they were not yet it was no worse then this To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement Therefore to bee out of the Church is a greater judgement which I must take for granted having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out Answ The minor of the first and secâ—nd syllogism are both denied For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse yet to be put out doctrinally that is to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all neither is it to be so any judgement spiritual or bodily nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain Another argument saith hee this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body now GOD doth not curse the faithful but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST though corporal afflictions are left But I must haste Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him and curses on them and theirs if they fell off from God the curses are for
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
no sure ground for faith to wit a promise in the word concerning the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying For the Apostle pleads that salvation is not by Covenant tied to all Abrahams seed and if not to Abrahams then to none else and the certainty of the salvation of some is acknowledged by me as well as by him And sure if the Covenant assure not salvation to all and neither it nor any other revelation of God tell us salvation belongs to this infant of such a believer or to that there is no certainty concerning the salvation of this or that particular infant of a believer dying nor is there a sure ground for faith concerning it nor is the hope of it certain and we are to suspend our judgement concerning it which Mr. B. carpâ— at so much in me to make me and the truth I hold odious which is almost all the work he does for he proves nothing he says in opposition to what I hold and though his speeches are inconsistent yet when he sets down his opinion he agrees with me that he dares not say there 's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants nor dare he I think say that he is certain of any one believer on earth his infant dying that he is saved 2. That he hath a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church is said by him But 1. he shews not what degree of probability I deny which he asserts 2. I never opposed the strongest probability Mr. B. asserts onely I declared my self unsatisfied concerning the certainty which Mr. B. dares not assert 3. That God hath admiâ—ted them visible members of his Church Christian is not yet proved by Mr. B. nor ever will be 4. If he had yet this proves the certainty of the salvation of none now existent for the speeches Ephes. 5.23 27. must be understood of the Church which is so visible that it be also the invisible Now though it be certain that some visible Churchmembers are saved yet it is neither certain that all or any visible Churchmembers or Churches now existent shall be saved and therefore no more then a probability of the salvation of all or some infants of believers now existent can be inferred though their visible Churchmembership were granted As for the strength of the probability I stick not to grant it as strong as he would have it so that he assert not a certainty And therefore did not Mr. B. mind to pick a quarrel with me and to affright people from my doctrine this Chapter of Mr. B. might have been spared Yet Mr. B. adds And the promises to them are fuller then Mr. T. expresseth and give us stronger ground of hope 1. God hath as I have proved assured that he will be mercifull to them in the general and that in opposition to the seed of the wicked on whom he will visit their Fathers sins Now this giveth a strong ground of hope that he will save them For if the Judge or King say I will hang such a traytor but I will be mercifull to such a one it is an intimation that he meaneth not to hang him If your friend promise to be good to you and mercifull you dare confidently hope he means not to destroy you Answ. This proves not Gods promises any fuller then I express for those I alledge not excluding but including in an c. this are as full as this Exod. 20.6 Nor doth this give a stronger ground of hope then I do who yeeld as much as Mr. B. infers though I like not Mr. Bs. instance which intimates that God should say I will damn the children of the wicked to the 3d. and 4th generation v. 5. and save the children of them that love me to a thousand generations He adds 2. God saith as I have shewed that the seed of the righteous is blessed Now is not that a strong ground of hope that so dying they shall not be damned It is not likely that God would call them blessed whom he will damn eternally after a few days or hours life in a state of infancy which is capable of litle sense of blessedness here Answ. What mercy is meant Exod. 20.6 and what blessedness Psal 37.26 hath been considered before and thence it may appear that a certainty of salvation to all infants of believers or to any definitely now existent cannot bee inferred Yet I oppose not the inferring thence a strong ground of hope Nevertheless that God should call them blessed in a sort and yet damn them is no inconsistency nor doth it appear much less likely then that hee should reprobate Esau afore hee was born or had done good or evil Rom. 9.11 12 13. 3. God saith Mr. B. entreth Covenant to be their God and to take them for a peculiar people to himself Deut. 29.11 12 13. And this giveth strong hope of their salvation For as if the â—ing promise to bee your King and to take you for his sâ—bject it is likely hee intends all the benefits of Kingly government to you or if a man promise a woman to bee her husband it is likely that hee intendeth to do the office of a husband And so when God promiseth to be their God Answ. Though I yeild that there is ground for a strong hope oâ— the salvation of infants of Christian believers so dying yet in the text cited there is nothing to that purpose For 1. that Covenant was made onâ—ly with the people of Israel and was a peculiar Covenant with that nation 2. For the Covenant was of Gods being God to them while they owned him and kept his Commandments and so wâ—s conditional So that thiâ— Covenant is not a Covenant with every believer and his issue nor did Gods promise to bee their God assure the salvation of all the Israelites infants so dying much less the salvation of infants of Christian believers to whom all the promises in the new Covenant are personal none that I remember national or domestical as were to the Jews 4. Saith hee And Paul 1 Thes. 4.13 would not have the faithfull mourn for the dead as those that are without hope now what dead are these And what hope is it 1. Hee saith the dead in general which will not stand with the exclusion of the whole species of infants 2. Hee speaks of those dead for whom they were apt to mourn And will not parents mourn for their children And for hope it is evidently the hope of resurrection to life For resurrection to damnation is not a thing to be hoped for This seems plain to me Answ. â—hough I oppose not a strong hope of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew how vainly he talks of his shewing more for it then I do the reader may take notice that if the Apostle be interpreted of the hope of
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
from a vine or olive Answ. 1. They may be said to be broken off who were never taken in in their own persons sure the abortives and stil-born were never taken into the visible Church of the Jews and yet if other infants were broken off so were they and if they were broken off though they were never taken in in their own persons but their ancestors then the infants of infidel Edomites might be said to be broken off who were in Esau Isaac and Abraham taken in But they were not positive unbelievers therefore other then positive unbelievers are broken off which opposeth Mr. B. 2. If infants of infidel Edomites be not broken off then according to Mr. B. the ordinance of visible Churchmembership is not in respect of them revoked and repealed and consequently they are visible Churchmembers according to the tenour of Mr. Bs. arguing 3. If God will not punish the children for the fathers sins as Mr. B. saiâ—h much less for a strangers then he would not break off the unbelieving Jews infant children then they are visible Churchmembers if Mr. Bs. arg hold 4. Mr. Bls. reason is answered before by shewing how there may be privations of habits not in being And if his reason were good and unbelieving Jews infant could not be broken off for that it was never in the visible Church Christian and is the branch of a bramble To my words that the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible churchmembership but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church M. Bl. replies 1. By demand Is there any such decree as to cast out of the Church invisible I am sure that chapter hath no such thing Answ. There is a decree of breaking off from the Church invisible and that decree is plainly exprest in that chapter v. 7 8 9 10. For what comes to pass in time that God decrees But they were broken off in time from the invisible Church of believers v. 7 8 9 10 15 17 19 22. 2 ly Saith he I demand did they continue in the Church visible when upon execution of such a decree they were cast out of the Church invisible or was their station in the visible Church lost and that of the invisible Church never gained and therefore they were not broken off from it Answ. They continued in the visible Church Jewish in opposition to the visible Church Christian which they persecuted when they were cast away and broken off from the Church invisible of true believers according to Gods decree of reprobation though they never gained a station in the invisible Church in their own persons Mr. Bl. adds 3 ly The Jews adhering to circumcision c. though God changed the rites Moses gave them refused the way of God rejected the counsel of God in not being baptised doting upon elements beggerly and so their eys are held that they see nothing into glorious Gospel mysteries And this their unbelief is their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood upon which account they are kept out from interest in the Church invisible And when this blindness shall be removed they shall then be saved Answ. Their unbelief was the means of their breaking off but not of their breaking off from that visible Church-station in which they sometimes stood the visible Church-station in which they stood is as Mr. Bl. himself describes it their station in the Jewish Church visible in the way of Church ordinances Circumcision Sacrifices c. changed by God yet as he himself faith the Jews stuck thereto and therefore stood still in their former visible Church-station Besides their unbelief was not their breaking off from it For 1. as Mr. Bl. said before the breaking off was Gods act so was not their unbelief 2. According to Mr. Bl. breaking off was Gods act of punishment but it was no punishment but a merâ— to be broken off from that visible Church station Nor upon the account of their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood were they kept out from interest in the Church invisible but for their unbelief and their keeping that Church station However if they were kept out from interest in the Church invisible their breaking off is more then depriving of a visible Churchstate yâ—a the same which I assert a breaking off from the invisible Church If there be any mazes in my 8th and 9th sections of the first part of my Review Mr. B. led me into them whom I was necessitated to follow Mr. Bs. arguments are answered without confusion and with so much strength as neither Mr. Bl. nor Mr. B. are able to refute Mr. Bl. asserts contrary to me that the Christian visible Church and the Jewish are one and the same 1. because Japhet dwels in Shems Tents which are the Church visible and this he saith needs no proof But I require proof that by Shems tents are meant Gen. 9.27 the visible Church Jewish or Christian. 2. Because they are one sheep-fold Joh. 10.16 and to the objection that it 's meant of the invisible Church because Christ gives notes of those that were indeed his sheep he saith Christ speaks to those that were Disciples onely according to profession and gives notes Joh. 8.31 of Disciples indeed and it is against all reason that Christ should in discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative This and that to those that were malignant enough in the Church visible the Pharisees as appears in the close of the former Chapter And the mention of thieves creeping into it hirelings employed in it doth contradict it The visible Church of the Jews and Gentiles in which Christ hath true sheep for whom he dies and others that thieves and hirelings do deceive makes up one sheep-fold Answ. The Text rather proves the contrary as Mr. Bl. expounds it For if the fold be the visible Church and the other sheep are not of that visible Church then there is not one fold or Church of Jews and Gentiles but some sheep are of one fold or visible Church and some of another As for Mr. Bls. arguments they are of no force For Christ might well enough in his discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative this it being usual to point out invisible things by it as Joh. 6.29 c. This God is our God And yet I do not think this fold John 10.16 notes the invisible Church but the people or nation of the Jews as Piscator Grotius c. expound it or rather the place For the fold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not the sheep and therefore not the Church but the place or country where or whence they are Nor were deceivers hirelings thieves or wolves in or of the Church meant Joh. 10.15 16. though they might get into the place and company of them Nor is it truly translated by our Translatours there shall be one fold
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
against him for me For if that which is ascribed to the whole people belongeth by a synecdoche to a part even those who are or shall be converted then what is said either Gen 12.2 3. or 22.17 18. or Rom. 11.16 17 24. of families nations branches lump may be understood synecdochically of a part of families nations or people and those believers as Paul Gal. 3.8 9. determines as converts as Mr. C. and so not children of believers much less infants necessarily included in the families nations branches ingraffed lump that is holy and consequently all Mr. Cs. arguing made void by his own concession which hitherto he hath framed from Abrahams Covenant to prove infant Baptism And what he argues That the lump which is termed holy Rom. 11.16 and the whole people termed beloved v. 28. is to bee understood of the better part and of those that were then unborn and of such a lump as should have a being successively and part after part and so cannot bee actually holy then when the Apostle spake it doth all exactly agree with my explication of the ingraffing of the branches in my Apol. sect 14. in the first part of this Review sect 1 2 c. And doth well serve to answer the arguments for the ingraffing parent and child into the visible Church christian against the sense I give for the ingraffing into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election Nor did I ever say the Apostles meaning Rom. 11.16 was that thâ—se particular persons of the Jews who persâ—st â—n unbelief or that the whole people of the Jews are now in the times of the New Testament holy in any sense whatever but grant they are broken off from the holy root vers 20. are castâ—away vers 15. are enemies and so unclean and prophane and therefore not holy v. 28. yet this meant but of some v. 17. a part v. 25. and all these things do well accord together and with the perseverance of Saints asserted against Arminians sith the people of the Jews are not by me asserted to be broken off from the invisible Church of elect and true believers in respect of what particular persons broken off were in their own persons but in respect of what the particular persons were in a former age of the same nation or people Mr. C. p 109. imagines that Christ saith of little children is the Kingdome of God because of his sained additional promise but he brings not a word to prove it nor doth the Text yeeld any proof that they were believers children and I have proved the Kingdome of God is meant of that of glory Review par 2. sect 18. And for his conceit that Christ bid suffer them to come to him because of the additional promise of Mr. C. it is without proof and not agreeable to Mr. Cs. own conceiâ— For if Christ would intimate that this is part of the Gospel of the Kingdome that believers should be blessings to their children namely so as they should be means of their conversion he should rather have directed the Apostles to suffer them to be brought to their parents to be educâ—ted then to himself to lay hands on them And Christs anger against his Disciples argues no such intimation nor his saying that of them is the Kingdome of God proves their right to Baptism as doth the receiving the Holy Ghost Act. 10.47 For that shewed Cornelius actually a believer so did not Christs speech of the little children which expressed not their present but future estate as is proved Review par 2. sect 19. Nor is there a word brought by Mr. C. to prove that Christs command was given to his Disciples for a perpetual obligation to the Disciples of Christ in all ages then to come to bring infants to Christ in an external way and therefore by Baptism For though it were recorded after his ascension yet it follows not it was recorded to learn this to have a way of bringing infants to Christ by Baptism there being something else to be learned by it and it is rather a sure proof that Christ did not teach that by his command sith neither then nor after do we find the Apostles did baptize an infant and the phrase of comming to him cannot import Baptism sith he did not baptize Joh. 4.1 2. and if any standing rule were intended by Christs command it should be rather laying on hands and praying for infants then baptizing them Though it be granted that to whom Christ is a King he is also a Prophet yet it follows not that infants being such as of whom is Christs Kingdome they are his Disciples as meant Mat. 28.19 much less that they are made Disciples when their parents are converted because they are then in the way of the Spirits teaching Christ being a Prophet to other then Disciples meant Mat. 28.19 Nor is there the least hint Act. 15.10 of infants being Disciples and the notion of Disciples by the parents conversion or by being in the way of the spirits teaching which yet is not shewed but fancied by Mr. C. are meer devised whimzies refuted by me Review par 2. sect 10 11 12 13 14 15. Nor is any sufficient answer given hereby or by Mr. C. elsewhere or any other or ever will be to the argument as brought by me against infant baptism Review par 2. sect 5. and elsewhere What Mr. C. saith That more might be said about those words in answer to it namely that in the words Baptizing them Mat. 28.19 we have by a synecdoche a part for the whole an usual form of speech in the Scripture for we know the Apostles commission did extend as well to a setting up of other Ordinances as of Baptism Therefore when he saith Go teach all nations baptizing them it is as if he had said Go teach them and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel of which among other things the application of the token of Abrahams Covenant to infants may be a part any thing in that place contained notwithstanding Answ. 1. Such a synecdoche in any institution of a rite is no where to be found as this which Mr. C. dreams of baptizing them into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel not onely Baptism but also breaking of bread c. 2. We know the Apostles commission did extend as well to the setting up of other Ordinances viz. breaking of Bread 1 Cor. 11.23 as of Baptism but not in the word baptizing Mat. 28 19. but in the word teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you v. 20. 3. There is this very thing which Mr. C. himself saith against baptizing infants it is as if he had said Go teach them and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel For sure Christ did not bid them teach infants nor do I think Mr. C. would have them entred into
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
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
faith of Elders keep to the end which are most fitlâ— appliâ—d to doctrine make more probâ—ble as I noted in my Apology § 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon in which men speak not exactly as in other writings 2. The words hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit could be known onely by guess and conjectural presage it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told and therefore the other speeches as likewise other speeches as that tom 7. de pecc mer. remiss l. 1. c. 24. shew was his wont are to bee conceived as spoken not out of any good records but from that which he found observed in his time where he had been 3 Because serm 14. de verbis Apost he saith that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit though he onely set down what waâ— determined in that Council of Carthage which was in the third Century 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false uncertain contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions universal observations that many Protestants have discredited them of which some testimonies are set down by me in my Pâ—aecursor sect 3. Salmasius appar ad libr. de primatu pâ—pae menâ—ions some other as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church and yet were deceived Hierome saith it was in all the world decreed that one should be a Bishop over others and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories shews it waâ— otherwiâ—e in Scotland of old And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1 6. hee makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter c. of eating the Lords Supper fasting as always universally observed in which he was mistaken Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument as if I had said Easter was always held my words were If Austins rule were true then Easter should be from the Apostles not because I thought it true but because Austin thought so and so by his rule Easter must bee counted to come from the Apostles and his testimony is as good for it as for the universal observation of inâ—ant Baptism 5. Not onely Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients as amply as infant Baptism Jewel Sermon at Pauls Cross p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants which is yet also practised by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia The Church of Rome upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise The putting milk and honey into the mouth of thâ—â—aptized the standing at prayer on Lords days between Easter and Whitsontide the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent with many more are now left though Bellarmin l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tels us Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos absolvendi pâ—nitentes in paschaâ—e verum est apud Lutheranos caeterùm apud Catholicos ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur which I mention to shew that there arâ— some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing â—p Jewel Deâ—ense of the Apology of the Church of England part 2. ch 16. div 1. saith there have been errours and great errours from the beginning hee mentions there and in the Sermon at Pauls cross baptizing for and of the dead giving the Communion to the dead body and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole he rejects customs of the ancient Church and condemnes carrying home to the absent the Communion mixing water with the wine and many more things and still requires the Lords Supper and Baptism to bee administred according to the institution of Christ which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever shew to have been of infant Baptism I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Pauls Cross I am content to yeild and â—o subscribe otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptistâ— by accusing mee as opposing the universal Church in Austins sense though I deny it to be true do but conâ—emn themselves who with Papists dâ— reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 aâ—es Apostolical and of universal observation near the Apostles timâ—s Nor is the 〈◊〉 prâ—pâ—sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the â—postles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in doâ—â—rine or disciplâ—ne For if the whâ—le Church might err so in one age it may also in all â—ges câ—llectively considered the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colleâ—â—ively considered then in each age distriâ—utively considered nor anâ— means given to them after the Apostles colleâ—â—ively considered to keep from errour then to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more meanes to keep them from errour then other ages yet they erred in doctrine and discipâ—ine as many writers shew about Easter the Millenary opinion anâ— many other As for the promise Matth. 16 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible the gates of hell have and do prevail against them but of the invisible and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but that they shall not erre finally to damnation which if they did then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them that is as Cameron rightly in his prâ—lection they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13 to the whâ—le Church but to the Apostles the promise being as well to shew them things to come as to lead them into all truth And yet the promise iâ— not so maâ—e to the Apostles but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching they were so guided as that they should noâ— err But of this point of the militant Churches erring I need say no more but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Rainold thesi 3. 6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally pâ—actise infant Baptism yet neiâ—her were the present doctrine or practise justified by it but condemned and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to pâ—eaâ— against the universal Church as my self For it is manifest from the places whâ—re there iâ— mention of it in the Ancients that they â—aught it and praâ—â—iâ—ed it onely upon the opinion of the necessity of iâ— to save an infant from perishing and because the very baptism did give grace remission of original sin made believers heirs of the â—ingdome of heaven and accordingly they practiseâ— it onely in case of danger of death very seldome and this they did to unbelievers children as well as believers 〈◊〉 a
work of charity not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as my self and both the doctrine and practise of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine Yea more in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith and did in all baptisms except that of the Clinici that is sick persons baptized in their beds plunge the whole body or dip it so as to be under water which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the â—esuites challenge in the article about praying for the dead p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence so I may truly â—ay the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism sith they deny Baptism necessary to salvation or that it gives grace and they do it onely to believers infants by sprinkling or perfusion without mersion scarce to any but infants without any solemn course of catechising ordinarily in order to future Baptism and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth and ordinance of visible Churchmembership unrepealed unknown to the Ancients and therefore their doctrine and practise hath no patronage from them Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith that I cunningly alter the subject of the question when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church and tels me that he and others do not say so Which intimates that hee and others desert the maintainance of sprinkling infants as ancient which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient and in the practise of many of them taken away the old Fonts more agreeâ—ble to antiquity and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew like Popish holy water pots fit onely for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish modâ— Nâ—r is Mr. Crs. way of powring water on the face or dipping in part of the head any more the baptizing Christ appointed or antiquity used excâ—pt in the case of the Clinici 'T is true Gods ordinances are not destructive to nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 and people mocked as they are by the preacher that saith falsly he baptizeth the person when he doth onely sprinkle or powr water on the face or dip in part of the head SECT LXXXIX The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal THe alledging of pseudo Dionisius the Areopagite and Clements Apostolical Constitutions is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names discovered by many learned Paâ—ists and Proâ—estants to be such and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos which are not rejected because questioned as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors whose names they bear As for the evidence to matter of faâ—t they give that infants were baptized in that age â—n which they were written I do readily grant iâ— aâ—d before too yet think it no advantage â—or the present preâ—ended infant Baptism which is clean otherwise and upon other reasons aâ— particularly that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism but the unbaptized obtain not good things Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism as being in Covenant with the parents For neither are the parents there said to be believerâ— but the bringers nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram c. 6. say Juâ—â—in in his Apology to Antoninus saith We obtain remissâ—â—â— of afore committed â—â—ns in water c. And before he had said that no man was brought to Baâ—tism unless he before believed Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon And ch 8. alwayes in the Church the custome waâ— that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons and long enough instructed and not baptized unless instruâ—ted and firm and stable in faith citing to thiâ— end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus as showing the manners of the Church As for Irenaeus his testimony lib. 2. adv bar c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5 say None I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration Baptism nor is it likely sith the word regeneration is noâ— to be read by the washing which is regeneration as if it were by apposition but of regeneration as the Genitive possessive and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration which is before the washing yet if it were so it proves not Irenaeus meant by renascuntur are born again are baptized sith he saith not are by washing born again as the Apostles phrase is Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients to be regenerated is to bee baptized doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place unless it were proved it is so onely meant by him and the ancients Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God But that indeed the word renascuntur are born again is not meant of Baptism is proved from the words and the scope of them For 1. the words are per eum renascunâ—ur by him that is Christ are born again and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master that by him notes his person according to his humane nature Now if then by him are born again be as much as by him are baptized this should bee Irenoeus his assertion that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men are baptized unto God But this speech is most manifestly false for
his flesh and bloud they could not have life As for the other place Dr. Hammond ciâ—es in Chrysostoms 40th Homily on Genesis that Baptism is lawfull in the first age I yeeld that Chrysostome did in that age allow infant Baptism but I think the Dr. cannot shew that he held it was to bee done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death or that the practise of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs that both then and some agâ—s after the ordinary usual baptizing was of chatechized persons at the solemn feasts when most in the Empire were by profession Christians SECT LXXXX The arguments to prove Infant Baptism an innovation Exam. pag. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal and Dr. Homes WHereas Mr. M. had said in his Sermon pag. 3 that it is manifest out of most of the Records that wee have of â—â—iquity both in the Greek and Latin Church that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the priviledge of baptising the infants of believers for the space of 1500. years and upwards I said in my Examen p. 9. But it is wonder to mee that if it were so manifest as you speak you should finde nothing in Eusebius for it nor in Ignatius nor in Clemens Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius that I mention not othâ—rs To this Mr. M. or his fâ—iend replies that I add three arguments to shew that Infant Baptism was not known in the Greek Church but therein he abuseth me for I addâ—d them not to that end but to shew that it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said that it was not universally known To my mention of the silence of Eusebius c. he saith 1. The question was not started then as the Fathers spake not clearly of the traduction of original sin before it was denied by the Pelagians 2 That it is enough to him that none of the â—uthors named by me spake against it Answ 1. The question of the Hieracites was raised in Epipâ—anius his time which did lead to speak of infants Baptism and yeâ— Epiphanius allegeth not inâ—ants Baptism against them though it had been for his purpose 2. Sure Eusebius that writes the Ecâ—lesiastical story and such as wrote the history of the Church had occasion to mention it is â—hey do the Bâ—ptism of persons of age he use of the Loâ—ds Supper the meetings of Christians the orders of the Church the ordinations oâ— Bishops and other things and would it iâ— were so manâ—fâ—st as Mr. M. said it was â—3 It may be they spake not against it because there was â—o question about it Buâ— it is lâ—kely there was no question about it because there was in the first ages no practise of it or very obscure For as soon as it began Tertullian put in some excâ—ptions against it and after him Nazianzen 4. If the Fathers afore Poâ—â—gius arose did not speak clearly of original sin then it is likely the paâ—â—ages in Origen on Levit. Rom. Luk. were nor his sith they speak clearly of the traduction of original sin and that speech of Vâ—ssius Hist Pel. l 2 â—artâ— th 6. p. 153. is right For who can at this day discern what passages were the brats of Origen or his paraphrasts Hee adds 1. If any thing were brought out of Ignatius you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him Answ. 1. Though Ignatius Epistles be very doubtfull yet I incline to think some of them to be his which we have and that genuine passages may be discerned from spurious 2. If any pâ—ssage though spurious were to be found in him for infant Baptism Paedobaptists would not stick to produce it who make no conscience to allege the words falsly ascribed to Justin Martyr in the book of questions and answers to the Orthodox and stick not to maintain the allegation of it as his thâ—ugh it mention Origen whom Dr. Homes imagins Justin Martyr might hear of though he died by his confession anno 169. and Origen waâ— not born till about 156. as the passages in his Animado on my Exercit. p 111 112 127. compared do shew Besides the allegation of the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as Dionysius the Areopogites the questions ad â—ntiochum as Athanaâ—â—us his shew that neither this Authour nor other Paeâ—obaptists are ashamed to allege bastard writings which say any thing for infant Baptism Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus he tels me Defence p. 19. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith which is not true why sure he had none but greâ—t infants to be his Schollers I conceive he means pâ—ofessed Pagan infidels But I tâ—ink this not true sith in his writings he directs Christians and opposeth heretiques if you who pretend to bee acquainted familiarly which is very false with the secrets of antiquity be acquainted with him you 'l know what I mean He desired as it is likely more Greek Fathers who were converted from Paganism did to set forth religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and confess the Christian saith that so they might bee added to the Church by Baptism in such a way as was proper to the baptising of grown men Which is true and confirms my presumption that when he speaks of Baptism as he doth lib. 1. paedag c 6. and elsewhere he would have mentioned infant Baptism and its benefit to the same end if it had been in his time in use as Mr. M. in his sermon said Concerning Athanasâ—us he speaks thus What say you to that passage in Athanasius Where he is shewing how wee are buried with Christ in â—aptism and rise again he sayes the dipping of the infant quite under water thrice and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and his resurrection upon the third day Athan. dicta interpretatio script q 94. is not that testimony plain Answ. It is But whâ—se is it Is not that Book one of those suppositiâ—ious writing in the 2d tome of Athanasius works of which Scultetus Medul patrum part 2. l. 1 c. 42. saith qu dam nullo judicio videntur con cripta quae se satis produn Among which also are the quaestions to Antiochus out of which Mr. M. or â—is friend pag. 20 21. cite two testimonies onâ— out of quaest 2 and another quaest 114 and saith the woâ—ds are safe and sound builâ— on a â—osâ—el ground owned by all the reformed Churches which make infants of believers baptised to enter into the Kingdome of heaven excluding the unbaptized which hitherto hath bâ—â—n termed Popery Nor is hee excused â—rom abusing Readers with these bastard writings by saying the words following may be erroneous and yet written by Athanasiuâ— when the words following are part of the answer which is erroneous and they are so connex that they must bee the same Authors As for the words How do you prove what you allege out of Tertullian and
the name of Theophilus Pâ—ylokyriaces Loncardiensis hee himself cites Baronius for the Lords day in the very title page of his Book What Grotius was in his life and studies I leave for those who knew him to judge his books though in many things corrupt I might be allowed to make use of as of other learned men with judgement In this thing I did think I might the more securely take his word because in the same place Annot. in Matth. c. â—9 14 hee declared hee was for infant Baptism nor do I think it was without some reason which he affirmed though my time and Library yeeld mee not the advantage of making search into this thing It is enough that it is supposed by learned men probable which would not bee if it were not then ordinary that the children of Christian parents were baptized after they had themselves been believers Which iâ— plain by the resolution of the Synod of Neocaesarâ—a elder then the first Nicene which determined That a woman with child might be baptized because the Baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb because in the confession made in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed For if in the confession in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed then infants were not ordinarily baptized who could shew no free choise in confession How this is vindicated from the shifts of Mr. M or his friend may be seen in my Apology sect 16. p. 87 88. which I think needless to repeat And for Grotius his saying thaâ— in every age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custome of deferring the Baptism of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their saith may be true if either those in Italy mentioned by Ludov. Vives Comment in Aug. l. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. were Greeks as it is likely in Calabria where are Greek Churches as I remember Brerewood shews in his Enquiries of Religion or the Georgians children or the Christians children of Cholcos weâ—e Greeks oâ— whom Heylin in his Geography in the description of Armenia out of Brerewood Alexand. Rosse in his Censure of Religio Medici c say they are not baptized till they be 8. years old Nor need the Anabaptists yet to blush for all Mr. Ms. or his friends or Dr Homes or Dr. Hammonds or Mr. Craggs allegations in saying that the Anâ—ients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptism of infants for many hundred years For there is no evidence produced for infant Baptism in the Greek Church till Nazianzens time who flourished saith Dr. Hammond about the year of Christ 370. and died in the year 389. which is above 300. years and hee disswades it except in case of apparent danger of imminent death and saith some are kepâ— from Baptism by reason of infancy and as Mr. M p. 24. of his Defence saith all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death intimates Baptism not fit for some time except in that case which may be gathered to have been the onely reason of infant Baptism from what is sâ—id before of the story of hiâ— own baptism and therefore I doubt not to conclude that infant Baptism was not so ancient in the Greek Church as iâ— by Mr. M. and others pretended and as now it is taught by him and others is a late innovation SECT LXXXXI The testimonies of Tertullian for Infant Baptism and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of chap. 39. de Anima are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14 I Proceed to review the proofs from the Latin Fathers for infant Baptism Mr. Cr. brings up Tertullian in the fronâ— whom he reckons at the end of the second Century others at the beginning of the third about 70. or less years after John the Apostle in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of infant Baptism could neither bee clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some infants for some respects should â—e deferred but have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams That infant Baptism was in practise in Tertullians days it appears by this question lib. de bapt c. â—8 Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancy make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi-Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for infant Baptism himself appears that in his Book de Animà cap. 39. he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason lib. de bapt cap. 12. Praescribitur nemini fine Baptismo competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism Answ. 1. That Tertullian might not be mistaken or that the practise of infant Baptism could not be clouded or forgotten is said by Mr. Cragge inconsiderately 〈◊〉 afore Tertullians time the great differences about keeping Easter between Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus where it 's said John lived much and died and Victor of Rome who pretended tradition from Peter the mistake of â—renaus about Christs age with sundry others 2. That Tertullian would have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams is a confident speech but of no credit with those who know Tertullian hath not called down the anointing the baptized giving milk and honey using the sign of the cross c. which yet are undoubted innovations 3. It is granted that infant Baptism was used in his time but it is withal true that hee disswaded it or did call it down as an innovation except in case of danger of death and that by sundry reasons which if hee had taken ken infant Baptism to bee from the Apostles hee would not have done 4. The allowing of it in that case arose as Mr. Craggs quotations shew from the errour of the necessity of it to salvation But Dr. Hammond saith further Tertullian a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customs and practises of the most ancient Church lib. de animâ c. 39. affirms it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by Baptism adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.14 that his meaning was that the children of Believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christs
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
of the term sanâ—tified any where else and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument is shewed fully before 2. But were it yeelded him 1. it would shew that thâ— alledging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications to expound 1 Cor. 7.14 by was impertinent the Jews sanctifications being not bâ— perswasion of another but of themselves according to Gods appointment nor do they note first bringing to the faith and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy 1 Cor. 7.14 can be conceived to be allusive â—o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. sith in 〈…〉 high Priest washed himself and but his hands and his feet 〈…〉 but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another by immâ—â—â—sion of the whole body and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in â—â—â—bable 2. If sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 be to be 〈◊〉 brought to the faith and so to Baptism holy is in like sort so be expounded and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of holy 1 Cor. 7 14. witâ—out any detriment to our cause it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith and so to baptism Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conjeâ—ture founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanâ—tifications for partial not total â—ashingâ— 1. I answer that I mention it onely as a conâ—ecture with a perhaps and lay no more weight uâ—on it 2. That for Christian baptism I no wheâ—e affiâ—m that it was onely by immersion nor on the other side that it was alwayâ— by spâ—â—â—kling but disjunâ—tively either by one or the other as by the wordâ— cited by him from prac cat l. 6 â—ect 2 is clear supposing indeed that Christs appointment was not terminated to either and so satisfied by either Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture shewed his willingness to have maintained by some colour the abuse of sprinkling in stead of baptism which his own words cited by me made me fâ—ar hee did against his own light and the contrary is not cleered by this slight excuse 2. The Drs. own words alledged by me plainly shewed that he knew the primitive baptisms were alwayes immersions of the whole body nor was any other use of water for baptism till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began Nor do his words practic cat l. 6. sect 2. cleer the contrary to be conceived by him For when he saith By Christs appointment whosoever should bee thus received into his family should he received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times and then aâ—ds or instead of that to bee sprinkled with it though he make Christs appointment disjunctively the one or the other yet he makes the primitive ancient custome onely to bee by putting under water as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custome a Rom. 6.3 4. Col 2.12 shew and the known saâ—ing of Tertullian â—er meâ—gitamur And of any one Dr. Hammond should acknowledgâ— it who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism and saith the Jewish solemnity of Baptism which he would have the original and paâ—tern of our Baptism to be the washing of the whole body As for his propounding Christs appointmenâ— disjunctively it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by maâ—ing that appointment which is but one way disjunctive either that waâ— wâ—ich is acknowledged to be Christs or another way in stead of it whicâ— cannot be shewn to have been practised by the Apostles or any Apostolical men in the primitive times And in this thing it is necessary that â—he â—â—il dealing of Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and othâ—rs be shewed who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptismâ— when Christ hâ—th appointed onelâ— dipping they add sprinkling when Christ appoints onely Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized they add infants who are not such and by a fictitious title maâ—e them Disciples by their parents faith who learn and profesâ— nothing themselves which he that readâ— considerately Mr. Baxters arguments in his 2â— disputation of the right to Sacraments may see sufficiently refuted and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscieâ—ce for what hee had written in his Book of Baptism and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian but professors of faith they add infants of their own head â—nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practise of Baptism plainly express both so as that they confess them to bee onely meant of the aged yet would have them to include also infants contrary to the plâ—in words and their own confessions and in their expositions so expound the texts as expressing onely what agrees to the aged and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another How ever it be with them sure I am no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping nor with infant Baptism when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d disput that there is a necessiâ—y of profession of repentance and faith before and none are to bee baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and though he supposeth believers children Disciples and the parents profession to be instead of their own yet no where proves it nor offers any proof but what is meerly conjectural nor can any Pastours or teachers of Churches without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Churchmembers infants whom neither Christ nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such But I return to the Dr. My last reason saith he is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness contrary to those their sanctifications viz. removing men from the congregation agreeable to which it is that those should bee called holy who in the account of God stood so that they might be received into the Church To this he answers that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the childrens beiâ—g excluded or included in the Church asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man But to this I reply that that which is so manifest needed no further proof for what two things can be more proportionable or answerable the one to the other then the Jews calling those unclean and holy who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle and the Christians calling them unclean and holy
that were excluded from and received into the Church the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides as also the uncleanness and holiness and the proportion lying onely betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on Answ. Were it so yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 after the Drs. minde For it is not the fitness of an expression that must prove the sense we would but the use and the matter of the speech in which the Drs. expositions are defective But the holy Ghost no where that I know resembles the meer visible Church by the tabernacle but the invisible in which the spirit of God dwels or rather every believing Saint 1 Cor. 3.16 17. 6.19 Heb. 3.6 1 Tim. 3.15 or the body of Christ Joh. 2.19 Heb. 8.2 or heaven Heb. 9.24 and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness is such as excludes and the holiness such as admits into communion with God union with Christ entrance into heaven 2 Cor. 6.16 17. Revel 21.27 and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings is that which is invisible by the spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 not meer outward baptism and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness The Dr. adds As for his question of Cornelius it is most vain the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion fearing praying c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jews which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius These be pitifull sophisms and in no reason farther to be insisted on Answ. All the discourse is not about meere relative sanctification sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 by being converted to the faith and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification But were all the discourse about relative sanctification yet the question was not vain but attains the end for which propounded sith Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter Acts 10.14 was not out of the Church of God no not out of the Church visible being of good report among all the nation of the Jews Acts 10.22 though he were not in the policy of Israel and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism of which is enough said before Nor are any of these things I alledge sophisms but plain answers nor any otherwise pittifull then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatioâ—s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14 in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ and Augustin l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before And Hieromes different interpretation is that which is in the comment on 1 Cor. 7.14 in these words left out by the Dr. Item ideâ— vir uxor invicem sanctificantur quia ex traditione Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae mentioned here before sect 92. And Ambrose or who ever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom 4. sancti sunt quia de conjugiis legitimis natis both which agree with my exposition The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum the latter if it call Baptism sanctification yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus sanctified id est Baptized which yeelds such a sense as the Dr. will not own and is shewed before not at all to be satisfied by him Neither the antiquity of Cyprian nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect How much Tertullian whom Cyprian counted his master and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned mistook the meaning of Scripture and generally the Fathers may be discerned by their writings remaining or if any list to take a short cut to satisfie himself he may see much in Sixt. senens Biblioth l. 5. and 6. In the 4 th ch sect 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defence there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before Onely I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defence because he doth so often tell me that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises SECT XCVI The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian Baptism as Dr. Hammond would have it CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defence Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving though it were his own term qu. 4 § 21. the more imperfect ways of probation tels us though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with Gods institution of circumcision among the Jews and so certainly invalidates all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. T. drawn from the incapacity of infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of infants c. And this the rather because the Apostle compares â—aptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. â— 11 12. and then adds some savings of Fathers which are of no validity for his purpose of the other thereâ— nothing true For the arguments drawn from incapacity fore going necessity of preaching qualifications have their force from the institution of Baptism by Carâ—t which lye not at all against the circumcising infants which hath another institution and hath no analogy with Baptism to acquiâ— infant Baptism for unlawfulness or unfitness except the Dr. can prove which I am sure he can never do that the Church as in the prelatical language he useth to speak hath power to make that lawfull and fit to be done in the Sacraments of Christ which is otherwise thâ—n Christ hath appointed The Apostle doth not at all compare baptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. But these things are so fully argued Review part 2 sect 5 c. here sect 8 that till these sections are better answered then Dr. Hammond doth here the arguments will be valid against Infant Baptism The force of the Drs. urging Christs actions to little ones Mark 10.16 Matth. 19.14
is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews
received by every male noâ— onely at their first comming to the Church of the â—ews at their first Proselytism but through all posterities every child of a Proselyte that was not circumcised became straightwayes no Proselyte And then sure this conjunction of Baptism with Circumcision on these terms of equality both of perpetual necessity to all Proselyteâ— must needs extend the Baptism as well as the Circumcision beyond the first Proselytes and their immediate children to all their posterity that shall come from them afterwards for to all those belonged Circumcision So again in the same place And if he be not baptized hee remains a Pagan or Gentile Here I shall ask whether the childe of a Proselyte who had been baptized in his infancy were to be a Fagan for ever I suppose it will be answered no And then by the force of that testimony of Gemara I conclude therefore it must bee supposed that he was baptized for else he would be a Pagan for ever Answ. It were very strange that Mr. Selden should in the same chapter in which he cites those words lib. 1. de Synâ—d c. 3. p. 35. assert p. 28. before and p. 41. after that neither Jews children after the giving the Law nor Proselytes children after their first Baptism should be baptized if the words there did import the contrary And therefore though I want the book to consider it yet I doubt not the sense of the words is plain thus that the Gentile who is not baptized at first as well as circumcised wants for ever not onely a little while the right of a Proselyte and is the very same which both Selden there p. 39. cites out of Maimonides Issuri â—ia c. 13 and Ainsw annot on Gen. 17.12 A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized or baptized and not circumcised he is not a Proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptised So that the sense is not as the Dr. would that no Proselytes child shall have the right of a Proselyte unless that child be as well baptised as circumcised but this that he that at his first Proselytism is onely circumcised and not baptised shall still want the right of a Proselyte as if he were not circumcised at all till he be baptised as well as circumcised And that to be the meaning is plain out of the words that Selden cites from the same Book p. 35. a little after where R. Eliezers opinion being that a person may be a Proselyte if circumcised though not baptised because so were their Fathers and Rabbi Jâ—shuah's that he was a Proselyte who was baptised and not circumcised because so were their mothers it is said that the wise men nevertheless have pronounced that if any have been baptised and not circumcised or circumcised and not baptised he is not a Proselyte till he is as well baptised as circumcised and the same is the sense of the other speech So that those words do not speak of any other then the first Proselytes Baptism of that race not of the posterity nor of the conjunction of Baptism and Circumcision but at the first entrance into the Covenant and therefore to the Drs. question I say the posterity of a Proselyte were Israelites not Pagans though they were not baptised in their own persons by vertue of the parents baptism if they were not born before it The Dr. proceeds thus Besides this two things I farther add to remove all possible force of this suggestion 1. that if it were granted in the full latitude wherein it is proposed that the Jews baptized no other infants of Proselytes but those whom they had at their first conversion yet this would nothing profit Mr. T. For it were then obvious to affirm that Christ who imitated the Jews in that and so baptised the children of Christian Proselytes did make some light change in this and farther then the pattern before him afforded baptized all the posterity that should succeed them and were born in the Church in their infancy also the reason though not the patteâ—n belonging equally to them as to the children of the first Proselytes and the Jewish custome of baptizing their natives infants beeing fully home to it Answ. The Dr. having tried to prove the posterity of the Proseselytes born after their proselytism to have been wonâ— to bee baptized by the Jews but distrusting it's likely it would not hold yet thinks to use another engine though it be as weak as the rest For 1. he supposeth the Jews baptised native Jews infants after the giving the Law which is not true 2. That Christ imitated the Jews in baptising Proselytes children at first proselytism and so baptised the children of Christian Proselytes at their first conversion which is manifestly false 3. That the Iews baptism was the pattern before Christ which is the thing in question 4. That some children are born in the Church Christians which is a mistake 5. That he made some light change in that of not baptising Proselytes posterity and farther then the pattern before him afforded baptised all the posterity that should succeed them and were born in the Church in their infancy also Which is a palpable falshood it being certain that Christ baptized none nor appointed the baptizing of any Christians infants and is against the Dr. For 1. if the custome were changed by Christ then it was not the pattern 2. The same proofs which shew a change in this shew as much a change in the other 3. This change is ill called a light change which made so large a perpetual addition 4. If the pattern did not belong equally to all the Christians posterity as to the children of the first Proselytes then the reason did not belong to them sith the pattern according to the Dr. is all or the main reason basis or foundation of infant Baptism with him 6. It is also false that the reason of baptising the after children of Proselytes or the native Iews infants after the giving of the Law was as before sith the reason of Baptism given by the Rabbins is the uncleanness of the baptized which they deny of native Jews after the giving the Law and of proselytes posterity born after their baptism So that it may be easily perceived that the Dr. hath not avoided the force of my objection against the Jews baptizing being Christs pattern but heaped up many mistakes and some against himself 2dly saith he that it being by all granted that the children which the Proselytes had at their first proselytism were baptized among the Jews this is as evident a confutation of the Antipaedobaptist and so of Mr. T. as it would if all their infants to all posterity were baptized For by that very baptising of the infants at their first Proselytism it appears that infants may be baptized for I hope those Proselytes infants are infants And if any infants may and ought to be baptized then are all their pretensions destroyed whose onely interest it is to
Circumcision to prove noâ— the duety yet the lawfulness of infanâ— Baptism 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte was a burnt offering of a beast or two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons both of them for a burnt offering so Maimonides tit Isuri â—iâ— c. 13. as Ainsworth annot on Gen. 17.12 Selden de syned l. 1. c. 3. â—ite him but that is not prayer nor is it any more agreeable to the Jewish custome to use prayer without it then to use circumcision of the heart Col. 2.11 without the outward or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed if time did not suffer it to be done without so much as saying the Lords Prayer The Dr. adds So parallel to the Court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not onely the whole Church in the presence of whom â—tis publikely administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselâ—es formerly baptized do represent the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated and been taken for currant Baptism and the terming the Governours of the Church the Church be language not like the Scripture but the Canon law and the use of Gossips be a vain device and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ that they are not fit to bee among Christians nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling but as sureties or proxies to the child and in private Baptism there 's none of these sometimes yet were all the Dr. saith yeilded this is not according to the Jewish custome which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voâ—d and so as Judges of the Baptism of which sort the other are not The Dr. adds But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter as far as I am concerned in it unless it bee to tell him that the Bishopâ— Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yeild all authority so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bâ—ar perfect accordancâ— therewith in this particular of infant Baptism though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselvs and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifiâ— it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Drs. own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Answ. 1. To call Cyprian Augustine c. Fathers of the Church which is elsewhere stiled their mother is scarce consistent 2. To yeeld all authority to the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason this is due onely to the holy Scripture they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise which was not so they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports this would be an inlet to many superstitions the Canons of Councils and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes as that they would be counted most useless writings â—o direct in faith or worship did not their age make some men dote on them Tâ—at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed privat baptism in the use of sureties their mimical or fals answers saying they desire to be baptized when it is not so The Drs. exposition Letter of resol q 4 § 116. I believe i. e. this child stands bound by by thâ—se presents to believe c. is so ridiculous and Augustines tom 2. Ep. 28 ad â—oniâ—acium is like it as that did not prejudice oâ— preingagemâ—nt or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action doth not justifie his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which hee makes the paâ—tern as hee pleaseth or the Bishops Canons order let the Reader juâ—ge by what is said and that which followes Of this score saith he 't is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism in the name of the Father and the â—on and the Holy Ghost In â—his one thing saith he which Christ did noâ— prescribe nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used In reply to this I shall not sâ—end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription if the express words aâ— his parting from the world Matth. 28. â—o ye theâ—â—fore and â—ach or receive â—o discipleshâ—p all naâ—â—ons baptizing them in the nâ—me of the Father and the Son and the Holy â—host be not a prescription oâ— Christs and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times be not testimâ—ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it 〈◊〉 and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Sâ—rapion tom p. 204. He that is noâ— baptized into the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no Baptism perâ—â—â— iâ— seems but that And if â—his will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can prodâ—ce â—o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the univâ—rsal Church of God through all agâ—â— or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infanâ—s Answ What grounds we can produce â—rom Christ and Apostles for denying infant Baptâ—sm may be seâ—n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review
though it did not necessarily follow on that usâ— For there might be Gossips without such opinion as there might be transubstantiation without adoration yet as the nature of superstition is to adde one humane invention to another and the laâ—ter worse then the former and the just judgement of God leaves men to err when their fear of him is taught by the precepts of men Isa. 20.13 14. as I have shewed in my Sermon intituled The leven of Pharisaical willâ—worship so it happened both in Baptism and the Eucharist infant Baptism brought in Gossips they were taken for parents thence conceived to be of such affinity that their copulation would be incestuous and so in the Eucharist the opinion of the Lords Supper as if Christs body were in the bread begat Transubstanâ—iation that kneeling and adoration which have more connexion then a rope of sand or pebles in a Wyth notwithstanding Dr. Homes his conceit and Straâ—o's words need better answer then he gives All that Dr. Homes p. 161 162 163 164 165. saith against my allegation of Cluniacensis doth not either prove that Peter de Bruis did not deny infant Baptism or that Cluniacensis did not alledge Augustine for it and de Bruis rejected it and appealed to the Scriptures though I have acknowledged in my Apology sect 8. my mistake about the words of the ignorance of Greek and the mention of the Greek Church and the Council of Arles For why should Cluniacensis say Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis c. but that Augustine was wont to be urged against them but they rejected him and appealed to the Gospel As for Peter de Bruis and Henricus their opinions I set them down as I found them reckoned in the argument of Cluniacensis Epistle not thinking fit to set down all that Cluniacensis chargeth them wiâ—h having by Mr. Gatakers Defence of Mr. Wottoâ— against Mr. Walker concerning Abailardus learnt how uncertain Bernards charge was against him and the like perhaps against Peter de â—ruis and Henricus by Cluniacensis in some things yet I have given reasons concerning their denying infant Baptism in my praecursor sect 9. to which Mr. Baxter hath no made reply in his praefestin mor. to avoid them though he had most unchristianly accused me of impudence and unconscionableness for alledging them as adveâ—saries to infant Baptism What I said of the Councils that condemned Palagianiâ—m and the Drs. who refuted it that they followed Augustin I did in some mistake as in putting Arles for Orange a City near and perhaps in something else being at that time without all my ptinted books which I had read before the year 1642. in which I was plundered of them and wrote my Examen in London anno 1644. and my Exorcitation anno 1643. But I had some remembrance of my reading to that purpose which I imagin was by reaâ—ing the words of Dr. â—rideaux in his 3d. Lecture de Gratia universali which are thus to the same effect Augustinus qui praecipuè sudabit in hoc argumento quomqâ—e Prosper Fulgentius Scholastici saniores sequuntur imò ex ejus scriptis decreta Concilii Aransicani 2 contra Pelagianos Semipelagianos ut ipse agnoscit Binnius contâ—xuntur sit vice omnium And for Augustins being counted one of the four Doctors of the Church esteemed like the four Evangelists the speech as I remember of Gregory the Great is so rife that I presume it unknown to few Students in Divinity Nevertheless I said I for my part value Augustines judgement just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh of which Dr. Homes saith that 's well but Mr. Marshal saith I slight him which is an unjust crimination of me neither Augustin nor any other writer being not imediately inspired requiring or deserving any higher regard and Protestant writers frequently in their determinations ascribe authentique authority onely to the holy Scripture Ames Bellarm. enerv tom 2 l. 1. c. 3. asserâ—tur â— nobis Episcoporum in concilio sententiam tantâ—m inquisitionem quandam esse dictionem sententiae ministratoriam limitatam ita ut tantâ—m valeat decretum concilii quantùm valeat ejus ratio which if right my speech is unblameable Nor am I to be blamed for not canvassing every particular testimony alledged out of Augustine it being not denied he held infant Baptism at that time and in such a manner as Protestants reject and how much credit is to bee given to his speeches of Apostolical tradition is considered before section 88. Protestant writers do often charge Augustin with doting in this point of infant baptisms necessity whereof some speeches may be seen in Mr. Gataker de bapt infant vi effâ—c sect 6. num 27. sect â— num 35. and for my part I must say that I judge his reasons so light and his proofs so vain that the testimonies out of Augustine do very much confirm me that infant Baptism is an errour and a very pernicious abuse needfull to be taken away out of the Church of God the reason of which may in some measure appear by my vindication of my exceptions against Augustines judgement 1. If infant Baptism had been such an universal and Apostolical tradition as Augustine would have it then the Church would have thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their infancy and the custome would have been so used But that it was not so appears first from the baptism of Augustine Adeodatus Alipius second from other observations set down in my Examen p. 14. The testimonies Mr. M. brings for universal practise have been considered before Hee adds p. 45. of his Defence That Epiphanius in the end of his work relating what was generally observed in the Church tels us The baptism administred in the Church in his time was performed according to the tradition of the Gospel and the authority of the Apostles as well as other mysteries then in use and we know that in his time Baptism was administred to infants therefore in his judgement what the Church did therein they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles But there is more reason to conceive that either he knew no infant Baptism or that he took it to be an aberration from the Gospel tradition and authority of the Apostles not onely in that he mentions not infant Baptism but also in Ancorato where he sets down the use of Baptism he saith Yee ought not onely to suffer every one instructed in the faith and willing to come to the holy laver that he shew himself to your sons that he believes in the Lord but also that with uttered words as the same mother of all your and our Church hath received he teach and say I believe in one God the Father Almighty c. Whence the Magdeburgenses cent 4. c. 6. de ritibus circa Baptismum say It is conjectured
a great light there were onely invisible members Matth. 4.15 16. Answ. My answer to this objection was in two things 1. That terms appliâ—d to Christians in the New Testament with allusion to passages in the Old yet are not always to be applied to Christians in the same latitude they were to Jews 2. That in that place such a calling is meant as is from darkness to his marvellous light by his vertues or powers which therefore deserve to be shewed forth and which they do shew forth that are thus called And both these I confirmed from Rom. 9.24 25 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy Nor is this a denomination a parte praestantiori for it is expresly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy And the same place of Hos. 2.23 is alluded to in Rom. 9.25 and 1 Pet. 2.10 and can be understood of no other then the elect And therefore if the places Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 Deut. 32.21 should be understood which I grant not of any other then the elect or members of the invisible Church yet 1 Pet. 2.10 can be understood of no other sith no other have such a calling as is there meant v. 9. nor any other obtain mercy as there is meant That which Mr. Bl. replies after his flirting fashion goes on this false insinuation that I took it for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches which he would refute from Matth. 4.15 16. and that this was the force of my reason whereas my reason did not suppose that at all but that none are so called from darkness to light in that manner the Apostle there describes the calling but onely the elect which is true though there be marvellous light in visible Churches yea and in meer visible professors yet none so called as Peter describes 1 Pet. 2.9 but onely members of the invisible Church 4 ly Saith Mr. Bl. As honourable titles as these are frequently given in Scripture as shall be shewen to visible professors why should then these be limited to invisible members Answ. 1. No titles so expresly noting elect persons as those 1 Pet. 2.9 are given any where to meeâ— visible professors 2. If they should be in any plâ—ce given to the visible Church yet they are to be restrained to the elect onely as when a heap of corn is so called whicâ— hath much chaffâ— or a fieâ—d of corn which hath mâ—ch tares the denominatioâ— is from the better part and is to be applied â—s verified onely of it 5 ly Saith Mr Bl. Mr. T. in his Letter made this Text to be parallel with those Texts Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 3.15 1 Pet. 2.10 And those Texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches to which Mr. T. â—eplies nothing Answ. I do not find that in my Letter I made 1 Pet. 2. â— parallel with those Texts Gal. 6.10 1 Tim. 3.15 1 Pet. 2.10 But in my Exercit § 12. I do alledge to â—rove that onelâ— belâ—evers may be meant by a holy Nation as they are by a family or kindred Ephes. 3.15 the houshâ—ld of faith Gal. 6.10 the house of God 1 â—im 3.15 a people 1 Pet. 2.10 Now saith Mr. Bl. these texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches But he hath not demonstrated them to be meant of meer visiâ—le Churches or meer visible Professors in them who are not also of the invisible Church and therefore I thought in my Postscript and think still I need make no further reply Mr. Bl. considers my arguments to prove 1 Pet. 2.9 meant of the invisible Church 1. I argue saith Mr. T. from the terms chosen generation royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people that is by Christs death Tit. 2.14 which cannot be affirmed of any other then elect and true beleevers Ergo. Answ. 1. Such a way of arguing would not pass with Mr. T in his adversary as peculiar people is takâ—n in one place of Scripturâ— so it must be taken in all places but in one place it is taken for the elect regenerate If this would â—old much labour might be spared in finding out the various acceptation of words in Scâ—ipture Reply M. Bl. it seems hath such a spirit of Divination as to foresee what I would do in a contingent thing But thiâ—â—olly of his I impute to his Satyrical vein which makes him that he can neither relate nor answer any tâ—ing of mine candidly My argument was not drawn onely from the term peculiar people but also from the terms chosen generation royal priesthood an holy nation which with thâ— oâ—her term a peculiar people or as in the Margin of our last Translation a purchased people have been applied to the elect onely by these interpreters whose words I here set down Beza analys Loci oppositum membram electorum videlicet summam excelienâ—tiam describit c. Piscat analys Hortatur commemoratione duorum maximorum beneficiorum Dei electionis ad vitam aeternam vocationis efficacis Electionem indicat his verbis vos autem estis genus electum vocationem vero illis regale sacerdotium gens sancta c. Dicson Vocantur autem regale sacerdotium quia sunt regni Christi sacerdotii participes imo per Christum sacerdotes reges constitutâ— vocantur genus electum quia Deus eos prae aliis populis sibi adoptaverat Gens sancta quia eos sibi dicaverat Deus in vitae puritatem Populus in acquisitionem quia Deus eos redemerat sibi in thesaurum haereditaâ—em asciverat Diodati v. 9. A royal that is to say a company of Priests who are likewise Kings Exod. 19.6 Priests to Godward to whom believers do yield spiritual worship v. 5. and Kings over the creatures over which Christ their head hath given them the dominion which they had lost in Adam and hath made them fellows in the glory of his Kingdome Matth. 19.28 1 Cor. 6.2 3. Revel 1.6 2.26 27. 3.21 5.10 20.6 A peculiar which he hath purchased with a price and made his by a soveâ—aign title to hold them for his own people New Annot v. 9. A chosen that is whom God hath effectually called out of the would see Chap. 1.2 Deut. 7.7 Royal that is Kings and priests See Exod. 19.6 Revel â— 6 5.10 Kings beeause of that power which they have through Christ over their lust see Phâ—l 4.13 Priests because separated to the service of God see v. 5. Holy nation see Exod. 19.6 Deut. 7.6 c. A peculiar people or a purchased people peculiar or a people for possession that is a people 〈…〉 God hath purchased to be his own See Exod. 19.5 Deut. 4.2 7.6 26.18 Psal. 135.4 Tit. 2.14 Act. 20.28 Ephes. 1.14 1 Thes. 5.9 Dr. John Rainold Apolog. â—hes § 21. Nam primâ— nomen populi sanctorum Dan. 7.27 ex Daniele satis clarè indicat significari