grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
which are not made to the visible Church as visible much less to the children of visible churchmembers as such but onely to those that are of the invisible and therefore this Text proves not that no mercy such as is meant Exod. 20.6 is assured to any society or persons but those of the visible Church The same also may be said of 2 Pet. 1.4 where the promises are given to the effectually called and that by them they are partakers of the Divine nature And for the other Text though there be no mention of promises in it at all yet if any be implied the speech is meant onely of the Church of Gods elect not the meer visible Church which alone is his body the fulness of him that filleth all in all and therefore if these Texts prove no mercy promised but to the Church they prove no mercy promised but to the invisible Church which is contrary to Mr. Bs. purpose here 3. Saith he By faith it is that promises were obtained Heb. 11.33 Answ. It is said by faith they subdued Kingdomes in the same v. and therefore after the rate of Mr. Bs. reasoning none should subdue Kingdomes but the Church The faith there is such a faith as the just lived by ch 10.38 therefore if Mr. Bs. arguing be good promises of mercy should be made to none but those who believe with such a faith and consequently it is not the meer visible Church but the invisible onely to whom such mercy is assured The answer is by denying the consequence that because promises were obtained by faith therefore mercy is not assured to any by promise but the Church 4. He adds To Abraham and his seed were the promises made Gal. 3.16 both common and special The children of the promise are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Therefore if those without the Church were children of the promise then they should be the seed The promise is sure to all the seed Rom. 4.16 The promise is to you and your children and as many as the Lord shall call Acts 2.39 The seed are heirs of the promise Answ. Mr. Bs. needlesness still appears He should prove that such mercy as he conceives promised Exod. 20.6 which he will not avouch to be saving mercy is assured to none but the Church and he means the visible Church but here he brings promises of saving mercy which he dare not say to be made to the children of all that love him Exod. 20.6 and are indeed made onely to those who are of the invisible Church and therefore impertinently alledged The promises Gal. 3.16 are such as are made to Christ either personal for his body mystical or to Christ mystical and the promises are those by which is the inheritance v. 18. righteousness by faith v. 21 22 which can be true onely of the elect and so that v. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So Rom. 4.16 is meant onely of true believers and Rom. 9.8 of the elect onely Now it 's not denied that the promises of righteousness and life belong onely to the Church invisible but these promises are far different from the promise to the children of them that love God Exod. 20.6 which Mr. B. will have onely meant of the visible Church and of things much below saving benefits The Text Acts 2.39 it as impertinently alledged as hath been proved at large before the promise there being not meant of any visible priviledge nor the fathers there considered as believers or lovers of God but as crucifiers of Christ and the promise not said to be to any of either sort but those who were called by God 5. Saith Mr. B. The Church is the house and family of God and the promises are his treasure and Christs legacies and the word of promise is his Testament therefore not for these without The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the word is the truth In the middest of the Church are Gods praises Heb. 2.12 therefore in the Church are his mercies and promises It is by the Church that the manâ—fold wisdome of God is known Eph. 3 1â— The Church onely is that body whereof the Lord of the promises is head Col. 1.18 Answ. The promises of saving benefits are Gods treasure and belong onely to the invisible Church but it follows not therefore that God makes no promise or the mercy Exod. 20.6 belongs to none out of the visible Church Let it be yeelded the Church is the pillar of truth and the word is the truth yet that God makes no promises to Cyrus Nebuchadnezzar and others out of the Church or that his promise to them is not true or that he vouchsafes no mercy to them follows not God is praised in the Church and his counsel made known and Christ the head of the Church onely and yet all praise promise and mercy not appropriate to the Church 6. Yet again They that are not in covenant are not under the promises of this mercy or have not this mercy stated on them by promise But those that are without the Church are not in covenant This argument is past contradiction No man dare say but these are covenant mercies in this promise mentioned Wicked men in the Church are within the covenant as I have proved in the Appendix of my Aphorisms but those without are not in covenant though they may have some conditional promises offered The covenant and such promises as those go together Therefore it is called the covenant of promises Eph. 2.12 Rom. 9.1 2. So is mercy onely assured by the covenant Deut. 7.9 12. and that to the Church onely 1 Kings 8.23 Neh. 1.5 9.32 Mic. 7.20 Luke 1.50 72. 1 Pet. 2.10 Many more Scriptures shew the conjunction between Gods mercy and covenant and most certainly they are all out of covenant that are out of the visible Church Answ. If Paedobaptists had not a mind to mock rather then to teach people by their writings me thinks being so often called upon to speak distinctly what covenant they mean when they say infants and visible churchmembers are in covenant and in what manner they are in covenant by Gods act their own or the baptizers they would still when they speak of being in covenant clear their meaning There are divers Covenants of God that with Noah Gen. 9. that with Abraham Gen. 17. that with the Jews Exod. 19. the new Covenant Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. Being in Covenant must needs come from their own act of covenanting and then the sense is Wicked men in the Church are within the Covenant that is they promise to God But in this sense no infant is in Covenant with God foâ— no infant promiseth to God Or being in Covenant is from Gods act of promising and thus it is most certainly false that they are all out of Covenant that are out of the visible Church For all men and beasts are in the Covenant with Noah Gen.
juice effectively Abraham exemplarily the Church doth it onely as a vessel receiving it as the stock receives it first then the branch the veins receive the bloud then the other parts of the body And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice it is denied if of this the minor 3. Saith he If saving faith ingraff the branch into the Church invisible then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith but the Church is no such object of faith but Christ. Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus If profession of faith ingraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession But the Church visible is no such object but Christ therefore there is no ingraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith is no more then to say to believe the Holy Catholick Church is an Article of the Creed and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied Faiâ—h that saves hath the object Christ and as it respects Christ doth unite or ingraff us to him as to our head and to the invisible Church as his body 4. Saith he That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church is either known to the body invisible or unwitting if known then it is not invisible They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes all being done by an invisible translation and so the subject of the question is taken away Answ. It was known to some of the invisible to others not though it were known yet it might be invisible they had light to discern an invisible work Though the work were unknown to some yet there might be a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles and complaint of breaking off the Jews as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes and the subject of the question still remains There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates Scheibler saith in his Topicks A not-being cannot be a part dividing yet he saiâ—h in case any defend that to be which yet is not in controversies such a division is to be supposed But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an ingraffing into the invisible Church may be discerned and thereby how frivolously 〈◊〉 compares it to a mountain of ayr And what he saith that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an ingraffing into the Church visible may be granted and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also One new man Ephes. 2.15 is true onely of the invisible Church for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews except some few proselytes of them That the visible Church communicates sap and juyce which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church meaning the visible as the partial object are diâ—tates which I need not refute sith there is no proof brought for them As I conceiâ—e he means them they are false so much for the vindication of my third argument My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and â—atness of the Olive tree But such is onely by giving faith according to election Ergo. I proved the minor by shewing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithfull and the fatness of the Olive not priviledges of outward ordinances but righteousness Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides which I shall reply to He begins with questions 1. â—ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges onely Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces though some were of outward priviledges And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to pâ—rtake of the fatness of the root onely in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the ingraffed Abraham was not a natural Father to the ingraffed branches they descended not from him by natural generation nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the ingraffed Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithfull Gentiles and they his seed spiritually but so he was not â—o the Jews broken off nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree as it notes the Church of true believers or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17 nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it but the Gentiles were nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet in the first part of this Review sect 10. He tels me further It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmony between them and example conveyed nothing here is a conveyance of fatness Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root for it is a metaphor but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing and if there were harmony between a Father and â—n exemplary cause though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness but as an example there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause though it convey nothing but as an example Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say the ingraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fulness of Abraham as an example That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17 they had not from him as a natural father nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed nor do the ingraffed branches ever become natuâ—al branches though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews who were natural branches What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection that if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old
initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh is Gods covenant v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant v. 11. 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Acts 2.38 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self repent and be baptized for the promise is to you not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism but the promise rather Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant and baptism were the initiatory seal But the term initiatory seal is chosen rather than the word baptism though it be the Scripture term by Mr. C. and others that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other which is meer fallacious arguing But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term the end of Christian baptism is in the first place that thereby the party baptizâ—d may testifie his repentance faith and hope in Christ love to the people of God and resolution to follow Christ to the death And this is proved in my Exercit in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3 4.5 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.26 27. Ephe. 4.5 Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20 where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance faith and obedience which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them The continuance of which questions as Lud Vives Comment in Augustin de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith Tertullian of repenâ—ance the sealing of faith Chamier Paustr Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch 12. saying Confession goes before bringing to salvation baptism followes sealing our consent whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession but baptism is the seal of confession No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant Bucer on Acts. 2.38 To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins Grot Annot on Mark. 16.16 And is baptized he that believeth and by baptism maketh profession of his faith So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized who are not in that Covenant they fly to an imaginary external Covenant and visible interest in that as sealed by it and there by a right to be baptized which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith not the baptized persons Covenant or his right As for Mr. C's observations here they are false and slighty For neither is it true that it is hence because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance but of Gods Covenant rather Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith but the contrary rather is true For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised it sealed rather his own faith and the righteousness by it already obtained than Gods covenant to him of something to come And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant than of mans faith and repentance That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39 is as vain For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism or giving any right to baptism but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt part 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21 22 23 wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy 26.17 Deuteronomy 29.10 11 12. c. Concerning taking it of children of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion I pass on to the fifth SECT XLI Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members noâ— parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the â—ead in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones Concerning which I say that part of the invisible Church which is on
earth professing faith being both visible and invisible visible in respect of their profession invisible in respect of their sincere believing â—t must needs follow that Christ is head of the visible being head of the invisible Church in respect of those persons which are of both And I grant that Christs headship being a Metaphor and nothing sundry things as Superiority Goverment direction union participationâ— of the same life sense motion c. In respect of some of these Christ may be said to be head of that part which is only visible as in giving them officers outward order direction help against persecutors c. But that in Scripture Christ is made head to any unsound members I find not Mr. C. urgeth Gal. 3.16 that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made that is to Christ yet not to Christ personally for the promise of pardon of sin did not belong to him and to Christ personall were not the promises made but in him confirmed Gal. 3.7 with 16. But rather of Christ collectively head and members Gentiles and Iewes v. 14.28 as Gen. 3.15 The seed of Eve is Christ with his members in and with him Answer I stick not to grant Gal. 3.16 by Christ to be meant not onely Christ personally considered but also collectively as Beza â—iseator others conceive yet I do not think the Arguments brought by them so cogent for that sense but that it may be understood of Christ personall as a common person receiving promises for all his members For the scope of the Apostle to prove Genâ—iles and Jewes to have one manner of justification is obtained by understanding the promises made to his person as a common person in behalf of all as well as to them as in him and eternal life is promised to all the members of Christ if it be promised to Christ as a common person standing in their stead as the second Adam As for Mr C. his reasons the former is against his own opinion For if by Christ be meant Christ collectively that is Christ and his Church then the promises be made to Christs person with his Church for what is Christ collectively but Christs person with his Church And if the pardon of sin be a promise then it must be made known to Christs person included in Christ collective Therfore either it must be said that the promises were made to Christ collective respectively to wit some to his person as that he would uphold him raise him from the dead give him glory others to his Church to pardon their sins renew their nature c. or that Christs person had the promise of pardon of sin made to himself as a common person but not for himself as needing it but for his Church or in their stead as 2 Cor. 5.21 The promises might be said to be given to Christs person as a common person Gal. 3.16 and yet confirmed in Christ as a surety of them v 17. yet in this place the term Head is not used and therefore not apposite to Mr. C. his purpose But Mr C. propounds a question Whether this in Gal. 3. 1 Cor. 12.12 13. be spoken of the visible or invisible Church and answers it that it seems the places admit of the consideration of the Church as visible First in that the Apostle speaketh of all the Galatian Church-members as well as others as one in Christ Gal. 3.28 Now were all these members elected will any say I suppose not yet all are one in Christ their head Answer Mr. C. a little before said Galâ—3 â—3 16 could not be made to Christs person because the promise of the pardon of sin is not made to Christ personall which goes upon this supposition that the pardon of sin is promised to the seed Gal. 3.16 But sure this promise is made onely to the elect not to all Galatian visible Church-members Yea the very scope and coherence of what goes before and after shew that the promises v. 16. were of the spirit v. 1â— of the inheritance v. 18. of life v. 21. which are proper to the elect And therefore to apply the speech Gal. 3.16 to the unfound members of the visible Church sheweth meer oscitancy Nor is it necessary that because it is said Gal. 3.28 Ye are all one in Christ Iesus that this must be understood of every Galatian Church-member but of all those of whom he had said v. 26. That they were all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus And after v. 29. that they were heirs according to the promise which is true onely of the elect of them And for what he adds Secondly in that he speaks of them all as sacramentally one with Christ in baptism Gal. 3.27 28. compared so 1 Cor. 12 13 as if because he saith they were all baptized he meant it of all that are baptized it is refuted from the very words by one spirit made to drink into one spirit put on Christ which if there were no more do shew that these speeches though indefinite yet pro subjecta materia must be limited to those visible baptized persons who were sincere believers and united to Christ by his Spirit and so those words Ephes. 1.23 4.6 Col. 3.11 and many more are to be understood And to the other reasons That Christ hath headlike influences into the Officers and Members many whereof are not savingly joyned to him and that it is the Church wherein he hath set diversity of Officers which is the visible Church not the invisible I answer Christ as a Superior and in some other respects may have headlike influences of command governing c. on some not savingly joyned to him but not the influence of union by his Spirit which is that which makes any members of Christ of his flesh and of his bones Ephes. 4.4 5.30 Nor is it true that Christ doth not set Officers in the invisible Church though it be true that he sets no Officers in the Church that is onely invisible but indeed he sets Officers in the Church invisible and chiefly to and for them while they are visible And therfore the Apostle 2 Tim. 2.10 said He endured all things for the elects sake Hence saith Mr. C. Profession of Faith unites a man to Christ as head of the visible Church without sincerity But the Scripture saith not so that any is united to Christ as head without the inhabitation of the Spirit Mr. C. adds Hence also a paâ—ent making profession of Faith in the covenant of grace as invested with Church-covenant in reference to his children it doth unite them also to Christ as head of the visible Church so far as to give right to solemn initiation of them into the fellowship of the church in circumcision as of old or baptism as now Parents acts in this case being in the face of the visible church their childrens acts â—s the places quoted Deut. 26.17 18 29.10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 declared Answer
yet more advantagious 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity it 's most certain that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nâ—ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency and so Churchmembers And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their owne estate to bee as the parents were even in Gods image Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership it proves not their visible Churchmembership of which onely is the question 2. If it prove a law or ordinance yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question which is not a law or ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be or they shall be so accounted For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onely can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission according to Mr. Bs. own dictates and therefore not de jure onely such 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B asserts 4. If it did yet it onely proves it of the Church by nature which hath a great difference from the Church by grace this being onely by election and calling not by birth 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed then it is in force and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin For man is born according to the law of procreation Gen. 1.28 and if this were the law of nature that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were even in Gods image then still the law of nature continues and so there is no original sin or it is repealed and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts 6. The words God created blessed do note onely a transeunt fact and therefore what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man this passage onely tells what God did but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose Let 's view the next and main Text. The next institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he â—â—ght have done But in grace 〈◊〉 undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conâ—uered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect coâ—quest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womâ—ns seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable oâ— he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars impâ—rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called then infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old strâ—ng and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members because the head is the principal member Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed that not onely in the Church Jewish but in the Christian properly so called the infants of believers by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God should be and be taken to be visible members But that he takes upon him to prove is that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church that it is his mind that he will have infant members all which we might
idolatry the other proves the same to have been the fate of Israel for the same sin but neither Mr. Bs. universal proposition So that hitherto Mr. B. hath proved nothing He applies his unproved dictates thus Now you know there were many Jews that did believe and did not forsake the Covenant of God even most of the Apostles themselves and many thousands more Now how then can thâ—se or their infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt who did not first break Covenant with God Answ. 1. God may in justice do it because he is a Soveraign Lord who is no debtor to any Rom. 11.34 35 36. 2. God may in justice do it for the parents sins some ages before or the national sin of the Jews in rejecting Christ might be a just cause for God to break off all infants Churchmembership being onely a consequent of the taking the Hebrew nation for his people though some parents believed in common punishments and changes the obedience of some few not exempting them and theirs from them as in the Babylonish captivity it happened for Manasseh his sin notwithstanding Josiahs reformation 2 Kings 23.26 Mr. B. goes â—n I am brief in this because Mr. T. doth not deny it But that which he answereth is that It is in mercy for their good I prove the contrary plainly thus It can be no mercy to take away a mercy except it be to give a greater in the stead of it But here is no greater mercy given to infants in the stead of Churchmembership therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked The major Mr. T. doth not deny and I will fully tell you all that he saith to the minor 1. In his Dispute he answered that Churchmembership of infants was revoked in mercy for their good and that they had a greater mercy in stead of it And what do you think is that greater mercy Why it is Christ come in the flesh I confess it amazeth me to see the power of errour how it can both at once bereave the understanding of ordinary light and the conscience of tenderness or one of these at least Is it possible that the judgement of such a man as Mr. T. can take this for a satisfactory answer or his conscience give him leave to deny Churchmembership to all infants in the world and to raise a Schisme in a poor distressed Church and to charge their own bloud on the heads of his people that yeeld not to him and all upon such lamentable grounds as these Answ. 1. I deny that now which I did not deny in the Dispute neither understanding whereto Mr. Bs. argument tended nor what his opinion was in the matter of his argument nor having competent time to consider his words 2. I was somewhat amazed at first reading at Mr. Bs. dealing with me who had so good an opinion of his godliness and tenderness of consciences and his pretences of friendliness that if a man had sworn to me before he printed that he would have thus abused and accused me so falsly I should not have believed it But I see no hopes of any justice from such an intemperate Zelot for his opinion nor any right understanding of me or any thing I say or do from one so prejudiced superficial in his consideration of things yet peremptory and rash in his determinations as Mr. B. is Suppose I had answered them as weakly as Mr. B. imagines I did yet a littâ—e experience might have told him that it might have commen from other causes then the power of errour bereaving at once my understanding of ordinary light and my conscience of tenderness Such censures if there were no more shew Mr. B. was carried with intemperate heat in his writing a thing which certainly corrupts a mans judgement and maâ—è verum examinat omnis corruptus Judex To his accusations I answer It is false that I deny Churchmembership to all the infants in the world that I raise a Schism in a poor distressed Church that I thretaen those that yeeld not to me and all upon the grounds he mentions which yet are not lamentable any otherwise then because they are no better heeded But to the argument The major I shall consider anon the minor is that which is under present consideration which I deny and avow what I then answered with this explication and amplification Infants visible Churchmembership was onely in the Hebrew nation The end of God was in taking that nation to be his visible people that there might be a fixed nation among whom and from whom Christ should be born To that end he would have them distinguished from other people by Circumcision by laws c. He would have their Tribes distinguished their inheritances fixed their genealogie certain this was the benefit of that nation the honour and mercy to the infants and others and God took it away after Christs comming as being useless it being to usher it in I mean the whole ordering of the Hebrew Church-membership and it was a greater mercy to the Church of God and thereby to the infants who had their Churchmembership onely a mercy before by consequence as a part of that people without any feeling or enjoyment of it till they came to riper age And this was a greater mercy then their former membership 1. in that they were freed from the yoke of the Law 2. Christ who was promised was a known person and revealed and accomplished the will of God concerning the salvation of hâ—s people Let 's view Mr. Bs. refutation 1. Saith he Was it ever heard before from the mouth of man that Christ succeeded churchmembership as a thing that was to give place for him Doth Christ cast any out of the Church onely that he may succeed them Can he prove that their churchmembership was a type of Christ that must cease when he was come Why doth he not prove it then from some Scripture or reason cannot we have a room in the body without being cast out at the comming of the head Are the head and members at such odds that one must give place and be gone when the other comes Why then is not the churchmembership of men and women to give place to Christs comming in the flesh Sure the nature of churchmembership is the same in both Why did the Apostles never speak of this among the types of Christ that did cease that all infants are put out of the Church or family of God that Christ may succeed as a greater mercy to them then their room in his Church and family Is not here comfort but by a silly comforter to all the Jewes themselves though they are broken off from the Church yet Christ is a greater mercy to them in stead of it Answ. Mr. B. keeps his wont of refuting me by frivolous questions and foolish scoffs in stead of solid arguments To them as they are I return these answers He himself ch 30. saith
91 92. out of the Text the words of Beza Aretius whose sayings are by Mr. M. in his Defence p 175. owned as true and Mr. Ms. own words that the Apostle asserts our compleatness in Christ without any outward Ordinance either of Law or Gospel And this I think Mr. C. himself dare not deny For sith â—he compleatness is in spiritual benefits mortification renovation remission of sins as Mr. C. acknowledgeth if we have our compleatness in Christ by Baptism we have these spiritual benefits by it and we have them not without it What Mr. M. saith p. â—75 of my abuse of Aretius is answered in my Apology sect 1â— p. 60. Aretius his testimonies out of the Fathers cited p. 176. prove nothing concerning the meaning of Col. 2.11 12. though they shew that some of the Ancients conceived of Baptisms succession to Circumcision as he did To what I argued in my Examen p. 92. that by this doctrine that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies both here and Heb. 9. 10.1 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians ch 3. 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the law because they have their complement in Christ not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them for if there be need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ hath not in himself fulness enough to supply the waâ—t of them and this abolition is not because of Christs fulness but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished and though our Ordinances may be said to imitate theirs yet Christs onely succeeds them Mr. M thus saith I answer it is very true that whoever should plead as Mr. C. doth that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinance would evacuate the Apostles argument but yet they by his own appointment help us to apply this compleatness they argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body doth the shadow We plead not as the Papists do that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ouâ—s they were types onely of Christ but yet ours succeed them to be like signs of the covenant of grace and so the Apostle doth in this place To which I reply 1. If it be contrary to the Apostle to plead that we have any of our compleatness in any ouâ—ward Ordinance then it is contrary to â—he Apostle to make Baptism and the Lords Supper to succeed Circumcision and the Passeover sith â—hat onely Col. 2.10 c. is made to succeed them wherein we are compleat without them 2. What Mr. M. means by applying the compleatness of Christ and how Baptism and the Lords Supper help us to apply this compleatness I do not readily understand I conceive it applied no otherwise then by faith nor they to help any otherwise then by exciting it which I am sure they do not to infants and so Baptism of infants is no help to them to apply the compleatness of Christ. 3. Though Baptism and the Lords Supper argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ yet the doctrine of Mr. M. that Baptism is in the same state and of the same use to us as circumcision was to the Jews that it succeeds into its place doth so aâ—gue as I have shewed 4. If Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body succeeds the shadow then Christ onely is made Col. 2.11 12. the successour to Circumcision for there is no other succession there spoken of as appears by the phrases of compleatness in him as the head v. 10. circumcised by the circumcision of Christ v. 11. buried with him risen with him v. 12. quickned together with him v. 13. dead with him from the rudiments of the world v. 20. so as that by holding him as the head being knit together the whole body increaseth with the increase of God v. 19. and chiefly that which is said v. 17. which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. 5. If the Jewish Sacraments were not types of ours then the reason of their ceasing from the succession of ours is taken away for that rests onely on this that they were types and ours the truth 6. If ours succeed onely in that they are like signs of the Covenant of grace then they succeed all the sacrifices washings annointings of the law as well as these we may conclude succession of Baptism to Noahs Ark c. But in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare analogy framed by our selves or delivered by the spirit of God but by the institution of God To this Mr. M. saith Defence p. 177. I answer but when those analogies framed by the spirit of God are agreeable to the use and end of Gods institution we are to be ruled by them and the Apostle shews that 's our case here Answ. 1. If this were true then to tie Baptism to the eighth day to be of all in the family c. should according to Mr. Ms. sâ—ppositions be right 2. There 's not a word in the Apostle Col 2. to shew that ours succeed the Jewish Sacraments to be like signs of the covenant of grace Yea I urged that the Apostle rather resembles burial to Circumcision then Baptism and makes the analogy between Circumcision and Christs burial and cited the words of Chrysostome and Theophilact on the place to that purpose Exam p. 93. To this Mr. M. Where iâ— Circumcision compared to burial and wherein I pray you lies the analogy between them I reply 1. I said not Circumcision is compared to burial but that Col. 2.11 12. burial rather resembles Circumcision then Bapâ—ism and the analogy is between them Which is true sith buried with him v. 12. answers to circumcised by his circumcision v. 11. and the analogy is that as the one so the other is the effectual pattern of our mortification and not between our burial and baptism as Mr. M. And to this are the words cited by me apposite Nor are the words of Chrysostome that we put off sins in Baptism for Mr. Ms. purpose to prove analogy conceived by the Apostle between the Jewish common Circumcision or our burial and our baptism 2. I said Baptism is named with faith Col. 2.12 as the 2 means whereby we have communion with Christ and are compleat in him Exam. p. 94. To this Mr M. But is not this the same sense with mine But your syllogism or mighty consequence I deny Baptism is named because it is one of the means of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster and come to be ingraffed into Christ and to be compleat in him therefore it doth not succeed in the room and place of Circumcision nay rather therefore it doth To this is replied in my Apology sect 5. p. 28.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ— Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whâ—n I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâ—ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which â—ate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inâ—â—pid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism â—is most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâ—e a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châ—ef article was that they should shake off every yoâ—e and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâ—e playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâ—h That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied