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
nations But infants natural fools mad-men in their fits are neither fit to consent nor to be members in the Christian visible Church no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith Mr. B. adds What then is this making them a Church in one day that Mr. T. so cloudily talks of If he say it is that then the infants were taken in I answer that is to prove the same by the same or else to argue circularly As to say their Church call did take in infants therefore the taking in of infants was peculiar to their Church call this begs the question Or to say their Church constitution is ceased because their Church call is ceased or their Church call consisting in the taking in of infants is ceased therefore their Church constitution is ceased and that Church constitution is ceased therefore the taking in of infants is ceased This arguing is like their cause Answ. I have sundry times told Mr. B. that the call in one day of the whole nation was by Abrahams authoriâ—y Gen. 17. and by Moses Exod. 19 c. otherwise then in the Christian visible Church which was by a daily addition of believers out of several families cities and nations by preaching to them the Gospel And how my arguing is framed without begging the question or any circle is before shewed And the call in one day I meanâ— of Abrahams and Moses act whether the hearts of the whole nation were bowed to consent to take the Lord for their God or no. I neither envy nor deny the enlarging of the Church by Christ nor do I think the converting or taking in more or less makes an alteration in the nature of the Church call or constitution but a call by preaching the Gospel makes an alteration in the Christian visible Church call and constitution from the Jewish sufficient to exclude infants from Christian visible church-membership But Mr. B. clamours thus against me And what means Mr. T. to talk of here one and there one To speak so contemptuously in such disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ Is not the wonderfull success of the Gospel one of our strong arguments for the truth of the Gospel and our Christian Religion And it seems Mr. T. will give this away to the Pagans rather then admit infants to be members of the Church Answ. I mean to speak as the Holy Ghost speaks 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. James 2.5 6. Rev. 5.9 and as by the Histories Ecclesiastical may be made apparent which rashly Mr. B calls speaking contemptuously in disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ as he formerly did my denial of infant Baptism accusing of my own children Nor by my saying is the argument for the truth of the Gospel and Christian Religion a whit infringed For the force of the argument is not from hence that whole nations cities houses were converted by the Gospel but that though the persons were contemptible who preached their Doctrine likely to affright men without arms against opposition of great ones there was so great success over the world as to convâ—â—t so great numbers though few in comparison of the rest even in most barbarous countreys from their long accustomed idolatry to embrace a crucified Lord. Yet saith Mr. B. Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once and five thousand afterwards and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe Acts 2.41 4.4 21.20 besides all Gentiles Was it but here one and there one when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord both men and women Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria Acts 8. Answ. It was but here one and there one as I meant it 1. It was not any whole nation or city and perhaps few whole housholds sure I am not one infant in any of the places For in Acts 2.41 they who were baptized gladly received the word and Acts 4.4 they heard the word and believed and Acts 21.20 they believed and were zealous of the Law Acts 9.35 they saw it and turned to the Lord Acts 8.2 they believed Philip. 2. These three thousand five thousand ten thousands inhabitants might and liâ—ely were but one out of one house and another out of another house As God had much people in Corinth Acts 18.10 yet but few housholds the Husband a believer the Wife an unbeliever the Servant a believer not the Master 1 Cor. 7.11 12 16 21. So many miriads might be yet but here one and there one considering that Jerusalem especially at the Feasts was full of people anâ— that the myriads are not restrained to Jerusalem but â—ight be in Judaea or perhaps in remoter parts It is evident that the number of Christians was not able to match the Persecuters and that even in Jerusalem Yea it is said Acts 21.30 that all the city was moved against Paul and the people ran together all Jerusalem was in an uproar v. 31. much ado the souldiers had to rescue him from the multitude v. 35. even at that time when the myriads are said to have been of believing Jews v. 20. The Texts Acts 9 35. 8.12 say not as Mr. B. that all that dwelt at Samaria believed nor all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron both men and women but those that turned to the Lord as is shewed Sect. 50. before Yet more Let him shew me when three thousand Jews were made church-members in a day if he can before Christs time I say if he can let him shew it me Sure ever since Abrahams time and I doubt not but before too they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born Answ. If I cannot shew it Mr. B. gains nothing my assertion that the Jewish nation were a Church together in one day by Magistrates authority the Christian Church was gathered by Apostles aâ—d others preaching whereby one was made here one day another there a believer another day not a naâ—ion city nor always a house together stands good But sith M. B. wil allow me so much favour as to shew him any thing me thinks he should not deny that more then three thousand were made church-members in one day Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. And if in the time of Solomons reign when Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude 1 Kin. 4.20 three thousand were born in one day by Mr. Bs. own grant there were three thousand added to the Church in one day Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shewed you before that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations It is a base exposition that shall say he means onely Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations and no more Answ. And what childish vanity if not worse he hath shewed in his ridiculous including infants to be discipled in
of God who chose the daughters of Adam for their beauty as being the seed of the Saints c. but as being at least in appearance holy and true worshippers and chosen by God they are so denominated noâ— from their discent from the godly for then they had been called the sons of the Saints rather then of God but from their profession and practâ—se if the interpretation of Aben Ezra that they were the sons Elohim of the Judges or mighty or that other that they were eminent persons hold not 3. I deny that it can be proved that these sons of â—od were not truly godly or that that they were so wicked that God repenâ—ed that he made them and destroyed them in the flood For neither doth their love of women prove they were not truly godly Solomon is judged truly godly Nehem. 13.26 though hee fell perhaps more deeply into the same sin Sampson was a believer Heb. 11.32 yet sinned this way Nor doth that which is said Gen. 6.11 12 13. prove it for that is rather to be understood of the Nephilim or Giants or the posterity of the the sons of God mentioned v. 4. rather then of the sons of God themseâ—ves v. 2. And therefore it is not proved that it was not their own godliness that made them called the sons of God but their Church state Nor is theâ—e any thing Deut. 14.1 that proves the sons of God Gen. 6.2 were such from their infancy as born of Churchmembers For they are the sons of Gods there either by profession or special choice v. â— not from their parentage Much less is there any thing 2 Cor. 6.18 to that purpose for the promise of son-ship there is not from birth but obedience v. 17. And as Gen. 6.2 their being made sons of God is not exprest to be by calling so neither is it said to be by humane generation nor doth it follow if the daughters of men were such from their birth the sons of God must be so from their birth no not though sons of God noted a generation or stock as it doth not follow that because that which is born of the flesh is flesh from the birth that that which is born of the spirit is spirit from the birth Joh. â— 6 Also saith Mr. B. an intimation of this priviledge and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous both before and after the flood which I will not stand on particularly Answ. This is granted but proves not their visible Churchmembership from their birth He adds And when all the world had so defiled themselves that God was resolved to cut them off he spared Noah and his family or sons Though Cham was to be cursed yet was hee of the Church which worshipped the true God and spared as a son of Noah and one of that society And if God so far spared him then for his fathers sake as to house him in the Ark the type of the Church hee sure took him to be of the same society in his infancy and then bare him the same favour on the same account Answ That the Ark was a type of the Church is not said in Scripture it is rather made a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 But let it bee granted the Ark was a type of the Church and that Cham was in the Ark for his fathers sake and a membâ—r of the Church yet it followes not he was so in infancy he might be so as a worshipper of the true God though himself in other things corrupt Again saith Mr. B. As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue as he did Adam with an increase and multiply and made a Covenant with him and his seed after him Which Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should bee drowned no more and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed and even with the beasts of the field yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed as one whom God would shew a more special respect to as he had done in his deliverance and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better For though the word Covenant be the same to man and beast yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word as applied to each And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an increase and multiply if all his infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church and so left as common or unclean This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children must now bee so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church it were a strange change in God and a strange blessing on Noah And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed if all that seed must bee so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain Answ. Though the Covenant Gen. 9.9 should import a special favour to Noah and his seed more then to the beasts which yet the text expresseth not yet that this should be infants visible Churchmembership followes not nor is it likely sith then all the infant posterity yea all the seed of Noah and consequently all the men of the world since then should be visible Churchmembers Nor was thâ— blessing of multiplying sad to Noah reduced to such a paucity though his infant posterity were not of the visible Church nor were they any more common and unclean thereby then they should have been if so taken nor had this been to increase and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil they that are not visible Churchmembers may be of the Kingdome of Christ and not of the Kingdome of the Devil I say not all Noahs issue was out of the Church yet the leaving out infants from the visible Church shewed no change in God from what hee was to them when he housed the sons of Noah in the Ark nor doth it any whit lessen the blessing expressed Gen. 9.1 nor doth it infer that all that seed must be thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain These are but frivolous inferences fit onely to scare weak heads Moreover saith he it is certain that Noah did prophetically or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Sem and Japhet And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him And it is plain that it is not onely the persons but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet that is to their posterity And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem as well as
over whom the rule is but the rule it self 4. It is so to be understood where it is mentioned as I conceive in the sense meant Revel â—1 15 as namely 1 Cor. 15.24 2 Tim. 4.1 and other places 5. Thus Diodati in his Annot. on Revel 11.15 The Kingdomes that is to say Now God reigneth with his son and that absolutely having subdued all his enemies 1 Cor. 15.24 that I omit others 6. This sense is the more confirmed if it be read as some copies have it the Kingdome of this world is become On the other side Mr. Bs. interpretation seems to me either not sense or not true For then it should be thus All the Kingdomes of the world that is every person in the world should be Christs Church that is a society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c. as he defines the Church of Baptism pag. 82. Now can this be good sense to be all the world the Kingdomes of the world and to be called or separated from or out of the world Can all the world be separated from the world And there is no truth in this interpretation sith it never was nor shall be that the kingdomes of the world that is every person old and young in all the kingdomes of the world shall become Christs Church For then Christ should have no enemies to remove out of his Kingdome contrary to the Parable Matth. 13.30 expounded v. 38.39 40 41 42. Now if this be the sense then it makes nothing for infants visible Churchmembership nor by kingdomes is all the members of a kingdome meant and so infants but both the consequence of Mr. Bs. major is justly denied and the inference from the consequent of it For if it be meant of Christs rule as the texts shew though it connote the persons over whom the rule is yet they are not thereby proved Churchmembers for in the sense there meant the rule or reign is over enemies as well as subjects Yea if the reign were over subjects and infants comprehended yet sith the reign over them is onely invisible this cannot prove infants visible Churchmembers Nor are Mr. Bs. reasons of any force to prove that Revel 11.15 by the kingdome of Christ must be meant the Church For it is not true that the constant phrase of Scripture calls Christs Kingdome his Church and Conversim For though I deny not that â—he Church is termed the kingdome of Christ yet I deny this is the constant phrase of Scripture to call the kingdome of Christ the Church much less Conversim â—he places alledged before with many more do evince the contrary yea there appear to me but few places wherein the Church is termed the kingdome of Christ. I am not yet fully resolved that it is any where so meant except in that Matth. 13.41 though I deny not the fitness of the expression Nor doth his reason hold that here it cannot be meant of Christs Kingdome in the largest sense as he over-ruleth common sociâ—ties and things For though it be true that in some sort so the Kingdomes of the world were ever his that is he did always so order them that they passively did his will yet it is certain that in the reign of Antichrist the kingdomes of the world that is the rule which was exercised was not actively for God or Christ but as it is expresly said Revel 13.4 â—hey worshipped the Dragon who gave power to the beast blasphemed God made war with the saints overcame them the beast had power over all kindreds and tongues and nations so that all that dwelt on the earth should worship him whose names were not written in the Lambs book of life and so they gave their Kingdome to the beast Revel 17.12 13 14 17. though they did Gods will But after the Lamb overcame them v. 14. and the Kingdomes of the world were his when the Kings did bate the whore and make her desâ—lite c. So that this may well be expounded thus the Kingdomes of the world that is the rule which the Kings of the world have exercised for the Whore shall be so changed that whether out of revenge of the mischiefs the Whore hath done them or out of love to Christ they shall hate her and execute Christs doom upon her which was not always done And it seems a piece of inconstancy in Mr. B. who would not have the kingdomes of the world taken for a part in the forepart of this chapter and yet denies it to be taken in the largest sense in the later part And how the infant Churchmembership of Christians can be gathered from the terme Kingdomes of the world becomming Christs more then any others I see not But I proceed 2. Suppose it were granted that by the Kingdomes of Christ were meant men and the Church of Christ Revel 11.15 yet sure it is far more likely that by the Kingdome of Christ should be meant the invisible then the visible Church For the invisible Church either solely or chiefly is called the kingdome of Christ and he is stiled the King of Saints Rev. 15.3 and Mr. B. saith here Christ is King and Saviour of the same society But in this sense I should grant the conclusion that infants must be members of Christs Kingdome And sureâ—y the visible Church-members who are not true believers have not Christ to rule over them but are enemies to Christ and Satans subjects and therefore not truly but putatively onely in Christs kingdome nor they any part of it They are not children of the kingdome Matth. 13.38 3. But were it granted that Revel 11.15 is meant the visible Church yet that therefore infants must bee a part of it because they are a part of a Kingdome follows not for Mr. B. saith I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdome and Jerusalem c. is taken for a part Which is enough to shew that the argument is not good which he useth For it must rest on this proposition where Jerusalem is mentioned there all Jerusalem is meant where Kingdomes are meaâ—t whole Kingdomes are meant and therefore infants which propositions are coâ—tradicted by Mr. B. himself and therefore it the whole controversie were referred to these two texts Matth. 23.37 Rev. 11.15 to decide Mr. Bs. cause would be lost for want of proof even from his own confession Nor doth Mr. B. produce any thing to prove that by Kingdoms Revel 11.15 is meant the whole oâ— a Kingdome even the infants but onely prattles that which me thinks a learned man should be aâ—â—amed of For there is no colour of reason to charge them who expound Kingdom by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part with making their own Creed without Scripture taking words alwayes in an improper sense making humane language useless putting by any Scripture such as are produced for Christs Godhead when he himself saith it is sometimes in Scripture so taken and gives
no proof of its being taken otherwise here Yea by rejecting such exposition without reaâ—on Mr. B. may be mâ—re truely said to make his own Creed without Scripture to make the Scripture unintelligible humane language useless to fortifie Biddle aâ—d other deceivers in their gross opinions of the Anthropomorphites and others insomuch that I think if the Arians were refuted no better then Mr. B. doth here the expounding of Kingdoms and Jerusalem synecdochically Arianism would quickly prevail and errours easily take especially with Schollers 4. Lastly were it granted that by Kingdoms were meant the visible Church and that infants were a part of the Kingdom thus meant yet this very text and that according to Mr Bs. own reasoning would prove the repeal oâ— their Churchmembership till the accomplishment of the thing meant Rev. 11.15 which whether it be yet or shall be till the day of judgâ—ment is very uncertain For Mr. B. here reasons thus it cannot be meant of Christs kingdom in the larger sense for so the kingdoms of the world were ever the kinâ—doms of the Lord and his Christ and it could not be said that now they are become so In like â—anner I may say if the visible Churchmembership of infants were meant Rev. 11.15 then it was not so before the 7th trumpet sounded for it is said then the kingdoms of the world were become the kingdoms of Christ if they were then become they were not before and consequently infants visible churchmembership not before Now when the 7th trumpet sounded is uncertain Mr. Brightman makes it to begin at Qu. Elizabeths reign the New Annotations when Antichrist is weakened Mr. Mede at the imperial reign of Christ in the great day of judgement which v. 17 18. do favour And if infants be not visible Churchmembers till then when perhaps there shall be no infants at all Mr. B. will have but a very cold suit of it if the deciding of the whole controversie whetheâ— infants must be Churchmembers be referred to this text alone But enough if not too much of these ridiculous though confident allegations of Mr. B. SECT LXVI Mr. Bs. 9th 10th 11. Arg. concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th 15th 16th Chapters part 1. of Bapt. to prove their visible Churchmembership are answered CHap. 14. saith Mr. B. my 9th arg is this If the beliâ—ving Jews children and consâ—quently the parents in point of comfort be not in a worse condition since Christ then they were before then their children ought still to be Churchmembers And consequently the gift and ordinance is not repealed But certainly the believing Jewes children and consequently the parents in point of comfort are not in a worse condition since Christ then they were before Therefore their children ought still to bee Churchmembers The antecedent I scarce take him for a Christian that will deny Christ did not come to make believers or their children miserable or to undo them or to bring them into a worse condition This were to make Christ a destroyer and not a Saviour Hee that came not to destroy mens lives but to save them came not destroy mens happiness but to recover them He that would not accuse the adulterous woman will not cast out all infants without accusation 2. The consequence a man would think should be out of doubt If it be not I prove it thus it is a far worse condition to be out of the visible Church then to be in it therefore if the believing Jews children be cast out of the Church then they are in a far worse condition then they were before and so Christ and faith should do them a mischief which were blasphemy to imagine Answ. If Mr. B. had set down as I desired him in my Letter what the benefit or priviledge is of infant visible Churchmembership which he asserts unrepealed and what infants lose by not being in the Christian Church visible the Reader with my self might have considered this argument more exactly But till that be done no man can exactly tell how to compare their former and later conditions wherein they are better or worse nor how from the equall goodness of their condition their Churchmembership is inferred And for my part I think such kind of arguings as these to infer things that onely are by Divine institution are meer devices of mens wit and Mr. B. in using them as indeed they are his onely strength he hath in this point for all the texts hee brings are quite from the matter and some so manifestly impertinent that a good text man would bee ashamed ever to produce them as hee doth doth but shew that he rests more on popular arguments which moves mens affections then Scripture proofs though most deceitfully like an Impostor he entitle his Book Plain Scripture proof of infants Churchmembership and Baptism when there is not a text that is plain for it scarce any that hath any shew of it But lest this argument be thought unanswerable I shall examine it A worse or a better condition are comparative terms and as Aristotle saith in his Categ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is said to bee great or small by it self but as compared with another so nothing is better or worse by it self but as compared with another It is necessary then that we examine the estate of bâ—lieving Jewes children before and since Christs comming The estate of the believing Jewes children before Christ may be conceived to bee either in actual possessions or in promises In actual possessions they had this priviledge that they were a part of that nation which was then Gods people separated from other people by circumcision lawes temple inheritance in Canaan priesthood and the children of the priests had this priviledge that the males were to succeed in the priesthood and their children to be nourished of the tithes offerings first fruits the poor by a tithe and other wayes The promises were either of special priviledge as that Christ should come out of that nation or of temporal blessings as that while they kept Gods laws they should dwell in Canaan and prosper there or of saving blessings These did belong onely to some believing Hebrews children not to all to Isaac not to Ishmael to Jacob not to Esau the rest were onely temporal benefits and were accompanied with a yoke of lawes and rites intollerable The children of believing Jewes condition since Christ is either in respect of saving blessings and so it is either the same which was before or better in respect of the easier way of comming to the knowledge of Christ in respect of the temporals So it is in some respect worse they are liable more to persecution with their parents in some respects better in that they with thâ—ir parents aâ—e exempt from the legal bonâ—age which they and their parents as paâ—â— of that nation oâ— visible Church were obnoxious to So that in some sense the antecedent or minor is granted in some sense denied
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
of a City or of a family and why not of a Church If I say children are members of this Kingdome or to please you Commonwealth or if I say children are members of every City in the land and of every family where they are this is all true and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it And why not when I say that infants are members of the Church But if you will not understand there is no remedy Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is hath appeared before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible churchmembers not because of the difficulty of the thing but because Mr. B. had a language as I then imagined and now find of his own of a mediate Disciple and a visible Churchmember by anothers faith without any note in their persons whereby they are discernable sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me that anothers faith could be a form oâ— note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do I shall not trouble him to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking of the brest nor being brought up in a godly family but shall passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdome into Commonwealth confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdomes and Cities Till then I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible churchmembership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor 1. from Mal. 2.15 where he would have a seed of God to be visible churchmembers But 1. he no where shews this to be the sense 2. this is not the sense For here the proper end of marriage is expressed which is common to believers and infidels But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be churchmembers visible or invisible neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it but to propagate a legitimate posterity who are called a seed of God because according to his institution But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review sect 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here in the 17th section 2. Because infants in Abrahams family were churchmembers before Circumcision Which I grant after the time of Abrahams call and Gods separating his house to be his people and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abrahams call Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument and deny the consequence of the major Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants churchmembers I grant it yet it made them visible churchmembers though not of it self alone yet with other signs So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh churchmembers how far it is true is shewed above at large and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant as he saith how is it a seal as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself as somewhat more then a bare sign 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh churchmembers but which promised Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of then the Covenant which maketh churchmembers which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ it follows 1. That the Covenant Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace 2 That it promised extraordinary priviledges to Abraham 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants but peculiar to Abraham and his seed which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses 4. Neither doth the Apostle say Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision nor doth it follow if he did that churchmembership then went before it 5. It may be and by learned men is questioned whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of Gods Covenant Gen. 17.14 and if they were it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant but a breaking of Gods command in that Covenant and their cuâ—ting off from Gods people might be by preventing from being Gods people as well as by making them not his people who were 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate that Abrahams family was then first made a Church yet in calling that Church the Circumcision it intimates that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be Gods people And if the Scripâ—ure do not intimate that then infants were first admitted members as Mr. B. saith here it will concern him to shew where the Scripture intimates their admission before and how I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words p. 24. and elsewhere that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly the concealing of which in the Disâ—ute and since hath occasioned the misleading of many and a great part of my trouble 3. Mr. B. argues thus That infants were churchmembers before Circumcision I prove most likely thus If God had before the same tender love to the faithfull and their seed as he had after and there be no mention in Scripture when the churchmembership of infants did begin since the first infants then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off because Gods love to the faithfull and their seed was as great before as after But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent He that will prove a beginning of infants churchmembership since the first infants let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it and I will believe him which I never exâ—ect to be done Answ. 1. This reason if it were good might as well prove the invisible
as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born and of the most open profane children of believers as well aâ— the youngest children born into the world 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally I mean the special distinguishing love of God nor to any of them but according to his election of grace 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers was from his peculiar dâ—sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed bâ—fore in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation 6. If Adams infants he standing in integrity had been visible churchmembers yet they had been such onely in the Church by nature which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church and some not From hence I answer to the argument 1. by denying the antecedent that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin 2. The consequence of the major if it did not it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time much less from Adams creaâ—ion sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire â—f and Gods love might be to believers seed and yet they no visible church-members The last argument whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely he hath in his Letter to me before recited I think to the utmost he could urged it and the answer thereto is fully made here sect 54 55 56 57 58 59. and thereby it may appear not onely to a man of common sense but of acute sense that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abrahamâ— family and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs and that from the Scripture and yet Gods love as great to Noah Sem and their seed as to others Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wiâ—â— our first parents presently upon the fall but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people And though the promise Gen. 3.15 comprehend infants yet not all infants and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15 and that they are thereby Churchmembers hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling that he cites Revel 12.17 to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman against our infants no doubt when the woman Revel 12.17 is not Eve as Gen. 3.15 but the woman cloathed with the Sunne commonly conceived to represent the Chrâ—stian Church and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST which cannot bee said of infants But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity and proceed to the next Ch. 24. arg 19th If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition which is made evident thus God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men both from the Church and from life for the sins of their progenitors therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men so much as into the visible Church then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church which is not yet proved All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices were swallowed up with them for their rebellion and so cut off both from the Church and life Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin and so cut off both from the Church and life Jos. 7.25 â—â— Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shouâ—d serve other Gods by the sedâ—cement of whomsoever that is if they should break the Covenant for the Covenant is that they take God onely for â—heir God then that City should wholly be destroyed and not so much as the infants spared Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command Num. 31.17 they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions Dan. 6.24 Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance the Hittites Amorites Canaanites Perezites the Hivites and Jebusites Deut. 20.16 17. How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d Com. And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church or Kingdom then hee should not onely shew more severity to the seed of the wicked then mercy to the seed of the faithful but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed and the many promises to them and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech such as should be used in Disputes For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God and goodness yet the term of proneness to
the most part corporal and on the Israelites and therefore the thing belongs not to the present point nor is it true that always the judgment on the children is part of the curse on the parents neither in corporal nor spiritual evils And though the truly faithful are not cursed with the great curse of condemnation yet those that are onely so visibly may bee so yea and the faithfull themselves are not altogether free from some curses both on themselves and their children as on the other side wicked men may have some blessings on them and their children Mr. B. himself said in the next ch 24. before They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 yet were they Idolaters Christ hath taken off the curse opposite to the blessing of righteousness Gal. 3.9 10 13. not every curse from the faithfull Out of all which I infer that were it granted that the non-visible churchmembership of infants were a judgement for the parents sin and that Christ hath taken off the curse from the faithfull yet it would not follow that believing parents infants must be Christian visible churchmembers sith some curses still stay on the children for the parents sin Yea Mr. B. before in his Letter tels me that it was determined in one of their private Disputes by himself no doubt the Dr. of the Chair in the Colledge of Worcestershire Ministers at Kidderminster that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt I hast after Mr. B. SECT LXXII Mr. 21th Arg. ch 26. from the absurdity of my Doctrine making all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil is answered CH. 26. saith he The 21th arg That doctrine which maketh all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visible Church doth make them all members of the visible Kingdome of the â—evil Therefore it is false doctrine Mr. T. taketh the like reasoning hainously from Mr. M. as if were injurious so to charge him And he saith 1. Consequences remote must not be fastened on men when they deny them 2. Many unbaptized are not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil and asketh whether children be in or out of that Kingdome before Baptism If out then by not baptizing he leaves them not in it c To this I answer 1. He that saith infants are all shut out of heaven may well be charged for teaching that they go to 〈◊〉 because the consequence is not remote but direct among thâ—se that acknowledge not a third place 2. I will onely lay a true charge on the doctrine and not the persons The doctrine sure may be charged with the consequences though the person may not 3. It is not your denial of Baptism directly that leaveth infants in the visible Kingdome of the Devil but your denial of their churchmembership Therefore to those vain passages I answer That it 's true that many unbaptized are in the Kingdome of Christ and so many infants also and so not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil But that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome I shall now prove and so that your doctrine is guilty of making I mean not really but doctrinally making all infants to be members of Satans visible Kingdome in that you deny any infants to be members of the visible Church Answ. 1. That which I said about remote consequences not to be charged on men as their sentence was spoken not from his charge of leaving all the infants to have their actual standing in the visible Kingdome of the Devil but of putting them all out of the Covenant of grace and this was made the bloudy sentence of the Anabaptists though no such thing can be proved of them by any of their sayings And therefore the two answers here of Mr. B. are impertinent my speeches being about another point though perhaps somewhat like it and charged on us with it And to Mr. Bs. answers I reply 1. Mr. B. seems to me to oppose ineptly a direct consequence to a remote whereas a near consequence is opposed to a remote not a direct for a remote consequence may be direct as well as a near But it is frequent with Mr. B. to abuse words 2. If a person acknowledge a third place they that shut infants out of heaven may not be charged with it as their sentence that they go to hell which Mr. Bs. limitation intimates he acknowledgeth And then by like reason this is not to be charged on me for that I deny infants visible churchmembership that I leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil sith I leave them in a neutral state of which more anon 3. I shall examine the charge on my Doctrine which I deny by denying the minor of Mr. Bs. syllogism 4. Though Mr. B. call the passages in my Apology p. 64. vain yet it will appear there 's no vanity in any of them 5. The argument by which I proved that unbaptized persons may be in Christs visible Kingdome which Mr. B. confesseth did fitly oppose Mr. Ms. imputation of leaving them all in the Devils visible Kingdome to whom we denied Baptism I think will serve against Mr. Bs. opinion For if it be true that infants are admitted into the visible Church by Baptism which is his position p. 24 25. then they are out of it afore they are baptized for afore admission none is in but without and if so according to Mr. Bs. doctrine infants are in the visible Kingdome of the Devil sith he denies a third estate and the horrid consequence is to be charged on Mr. Bs. doctrine not on mine 6. Mr. Bs. way of charging my doctrine is at vain as Mr. Ms. Thus it proceeds For if it be certain as you say that no infants are members of the visâ—ble Church they are out of it And then I argue thus If there be no third estate on earth but all are either in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible Kingdome of the Devil then that doctrine which puts them out of the visible Church of Christ doth leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil But that there is no third state but that all the world is in one of the two Kingdomes I prove thus The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called out of the world and Christ faith he hath chosen them out of the world and that they are not of the world and in the same place divers times call's the Devil the Prince of this world Joh. 12.31 14.30 16.11 15.19 18.36 17.6 16. And the Apostle calleth him the God of the world 2 Cor. 4.4 So then if the Devil be the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church
and out of which the Church is taken then all those that are not taken out of the world with the Church are still of the world where Satan is Prince But the antecedent is before proved therefore the consequent is true The world and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution Answ. 1. The world and the Church are not in all the places cited contradistinct For Joh. 18.36 this world comprehends the Church as well as them without Christs Kingdome was not from the Church by their weapons or other procurement but this world is opposed to heavenly power and gift from whence Christ had his Kingdome 2. Nor in the rest of the places where the Devil is termed the God of this world or the Prince of this world or the Disciples are said not to be of the world can the speech be meant of infants for of them of whom it is said that the Devil is the God of this world by the world are meant 2 Cor. 4.4 those that believe not in whom he hath blinded their minds that the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them and so must the rest be understood where he is said to be the Prince of this world according to what is said Ephes. 2.2 which is not to be said of infants and in other places as John 15.19 John 17.14.16 they are said to hate the Apostles which is not to be said of infants And therefore from hence they are not proved to be in the Devils Kingdome though they were reprobates 3. The world is not in these places opposed to the visible Church so that who ever are in the visible Church are not of the world and they who are of the world are not of the visible Church For 1. the world out of whom the Apostles were called were the Jewish Church which if Mr. B. do not as I conceive he doth make the visible Church of God when the Apostles were called sure Mr. Bl. Mr. Cobbet and others do as I have shewed before and therefore the world is not put as contradistinct to the visible Church 2. The world is in the places cited so described by their actions of hating the Apostles by their exclusion out of Christs prayer Joh. 17.9 by their Prince Satan by the Apostles calling and choosing out of them that the world cannot be construed onely to note non-visible churchmembers but a party that are obstinate enemies to Christ and so reprobates whether in the visible Church or out of it and if it stand in direct contradistinction to the Church which I find not in any of the places cited it is to the invisible not to the meer visible Church so that they who are without the visible Church may be no part of the world therein meant and they that are within the visible Church may be part of the world 4. The definition that the Church are a people called out of the world being expounded of the visible Church is meant of outward call which infants are not capable of and so the definition excludes infants from being a part of the Church there meant and yet they are not in the world in the sense in which it is taken in the Texts mentioned except Joh. 18.36 For they are not haters of Christ or his Apostles nor recusant unbelievers nor such as obey Satan as their Prince But if it be expounded of the invisible Church and the calling meant of invisible operation of the spirit I deny not but elect infants may be so called out of the world and be part of the invisible Church These things premised I answer 1. The conclusion is not in the latter syllogism the same with the minor in the former syllogism which should have been proved 2. The antecedent or minor in the later syllogism which is this the Devil is the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church and out of which the Church is taken if it be meant of the visible Church I deny For neither is the world in any of the Texts distinct from the visible Church but the visible Church or some members of it are the world there meant and the Devil the Prince of them and the visible Church in respect at least of many perhaps most of their members not taken out of the world but in it still nor is the Devil the Prince of them that yet are uncalled by an outward call from the world if as infants they be not by their choice and actions conjoyned to the world but of them that voluntarily adhere to and act with the wicked world Infants are neither in the world as it is there taken nor without that is they are neither with them nor agaiâ—st them in their present state but as they say in Logick a whelp till the 9th day is neither blind nor seeing so an infant till it act is neither within nor without the world visibly in which Satan is Prince Nor are those dictates of Mr. B. true or proved by the Scriptures cited that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome that the world and the Church visible contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution But if the world be taken for reprobates and the Church be taken for the invisible Church of the elect I grant it is true that infants are in one part and that Satan or God is Prince of them But this is nothing for Mr. Bs. purpose though it be most agreeable to some passages as Joh. 17.9 c. about the world and the Church Mr. B. proceeds thus If it be said that yet they are not visibly in Satans Kingdome I answer If no infants be of Christs visible Church and this be a known thing then they are visibly out of it and if they be visibly out of that Church then they are visibly of the world which is Satans Kingdome seeing the world and the Church contain all Answ. Neither is it true that if it be a known thing that infants be not of Christs visible Church then they are visibly out of it except it be so known from their sensible action nor do the world taken in the sense opposite to Gods people and the visible Church contain all as Mr. B. dictates Mr. B. adds If it be said they may be of the invisible Church and yet not of the visible nor of Satans Kingdome I answer 1. it is visibly and not invisibly that the aforesaid distribution is to be understood 2. I shall anon prove that the visible Church is wider then the invisible and that ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible Answ. 1. How far the former speech is true or false is shewed before 2. As for the later though we may not judge ordâ—narily these or those particular persons to be of the invisible
Church who are not of the visible yet we may judge some infants at least are so though nonâ— be of the visible Church Again saith Mr. B. it appears that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out Therefore those that are not fetcht out are in it still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable Heb. 2 14· Christ destroyed by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Therfore seeing Mr. T. buildeth so much on this Apol. p. 66. That infants are neither in the kingdom of Christ nor Satan visibly till profession either be must prove that God hath left it wholly in the dark and not revealed that any infants are of Satans vâ—sible kingdom or of Christs the contrary whereof is abundantly proved or he must find out some 3d. kingdom or society and so find out some 3d. King bâ—sides the King of the Church and the Prince of this world and it 's like he wil bee put to finde out a third place for them hereafter besides heaven and hell Answ. It is a weariness to the flesh to write books it is much more when a man is to answer such scriblings as this of Mr. B. which being so magnified as it hath been and written with so much confidence and insolent provocations is a monument of the boldness and shallowness of readers and writers in this age What frivolous arguing are here Christ destroyed him that had the power of death Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others Ergo they were of Satans kingdom as it is contradistinct to Christs visible Church till Christ by death fetcht them out If Satans power of death visibly over infants shew them to be in Satans visible kingdome as contradistinct to the visible Church doth not the same prove all the infants of believers to be in Satans visible kingdome as well as the infants of unbelievers yea doth it not prove the visible Church to be in Satans visible kingdome For over them Satan had this power of death as visibly as over the infants of unbelievers Yea wherein doth the power of death visibly shew a persons being in the visible kingdome of Satan more then Jobs smiting in his body by Satan or the womans who was a daughter of Abraham and bound by Satan 18. years shewed them to have been then in the visible kingdome of the Devil as contradistinct to the visible Churth Besides those that Christ is said to have fetcht out or delivered are those who through fear of death were all their life-time subâ—ect to bondage Heb. 2 â—4 Doth Mr. B. interpret this of infants Besides if it appear that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out therefore those that are not fetcht out are in still And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable How can Mr. B. say any infants of believers are fetcht out oâ— Satans kingdome visibly By what means is it visible or discernable that a believers infant is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome and 〈◊〉 an unbelievers Christs death was visible it's true but that either Christs death did destroy visibly Satan or visibly delivered those who were subject to bondage or that by it is visible or discernable that a believers infant and not an unbelievers is fetcht out of Satan's visible kingdom is unknown to me The ordinary meanes whereby it is visible that a person is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdom is in that he hears obeys and professeth the Gospel Surely by this means or any other it is not visible or discernable that any infant of the most sincere believer is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome therefore by Mr. Bs. own suppositions hee cannot say that any believers infant is fetcht out of the visible kingdome of the Devil and so his argument is retorted on him That doctrine which leaveth all infants in the visible kingdome of the Devil is false But such is Mr. Bs. according to his own suppositions Ergo. As for what hee would impose on mee it is false that God hath left it in the dark it is clear as light at noon that infants are neither in Christs nor Satans visible kingdome and yet they have Christ or Satan for their â—ing and are to bee in heaven or hell as they are elect or reprobate And therefore his talk of what I must finde out is but his prattle and of what hee hath abundantly proved is but his idle vapouring of himself 3. Saith hee Sure the Apostle calls the world them that are without as distinct from the Church visible who are within Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 And hee speaks it as the dreadfull misery of them those that are without God judgeth 1 Cor. 5.12 13. Now infants are either within or without and to bee without is to bee of the world which the Devil is by Christ said to be Prince of Answ. To bee without Mark 4.11 is to bee without not within Gods election to bee without Revel 22.15 is to bee without the gates of the city the new Hierusalem which I take to bee all one as to be cast into outer darkness as Christ terms it Either of these ways all infants are within or without but those without in the places cited by Mr. B. cannot bee said of infants for they are not persons towards whom wee are to walk in wisedome Col. 4.5 or honesty 1 Thes. 4.12 this beeing required that our example may not harden them but it were ridiculous to require this in respect of infants The Apostle doth not speak it as the dreadfull misery of them that are without that God judgeth them 1 Cor. 5.12 but onely mentions it as an intimation why they belonged not to his judgement nor doth hee in any of the places term them the world who are without the visible Church or Christ say that Satan is Prince of all that are not visible Churchmembers but of the world of reprobates and such as are contrary to Christ and in whom he rules nor is the term those that are without in any of those places taken for them that are without privatively for want of capacity to understand profess and act for Christ but for those who are positively without by the acts of their own will not receiving Christ nor embracing the profession of him such as were unbelievers fornicators idolaters c. 1 Cor. 5.10 11 12. Such as could observe and did stumble at the evil practises of the Christians Col. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.12 in which sense it is not true that infants are without though they be privatively or negatively without the visible Church SECT LXXIII Mr. Bs. 22. arg Ch. 27. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered CH.
exhorted to be baptised who are under the same Covenant yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism witâ—out which the promise warrants not Baptism There is no such command Gen. 17.7 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumciâ—â—on and if it were yet mâ—re is needful to warrant infant baptism There is as plain precept Acts 2.38 8.36 37. Mark 16.16 Matth. 28.19 against inâ—ant Baptism as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28 Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism without arguing from the Covenant of grace which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d part of this Review sect 5 and none against the Holy Ghost but from him That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39 or elsewhere Dipping in rivers need not be onerous and may be without danger to women with child Virgins some sorts of diseased persons in winter in cold countries and it will require more strength in dispute then either Mr. Baillee or Mr. Baxter have shewed or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd to prove dipping in rivers though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers to be against the word the second third and fourth Commandements And against sprinkling or perfusion instead of Baptism there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself and since printed with a Letter to him as is for ought I know yet unanswered All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98 99. that now infants of believers are casten out for no fault of the Covenant of grace and his aggravations thereof are to be taken for meer calumnies and since the printing of my Exâ—men there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd and till he name the Anabaptists and cite the place I can take it for no other then a false accusation which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers that brought the little children Mark 10.13 14 that they were not diseased or possessed that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time â—o come to him and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones though no marks were given to parents or others whereby to discern elect children these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did Mar. 10.13 Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church What Mr. â—obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part 2. sect 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory is made good against Mr. Blake there sect 18 and not refused by me I know no absurdity in it to say Christ might bless infants of Pagans What designe Christ might have or had besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church is shewed there sect 17. against Mr. Baxter I do granâ— the blessing Mark 10.16 to be personal and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents yet it is false that we make them blessed onely as symboles of humility or that the blessing was some complemental salutation or that as Mr R. saith of Anabâ—ptists after hiâ— calumniating manner wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant and under the curse of God but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace and that many other infants are so Whether they were parents or believers in Christ as the Messiah who brought the children Matth. 19.13 is uncertain nor do I say or need I they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant nor do I deny that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews under the New Testament nor doth any thing I say infer that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings which proves a prediction that the natural seed of believers as such shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church But they are all impertinently alledged some being meant of the Jews iâ—crease in Judâ—â— after their return from Babylon some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles and most of them so far cleared before that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies and incoherencies that I shall onely animadvert on some passages till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form He tels us pag 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting as the means before the end and the cause before the effect for faith comes by hearing of a sent preâ—cher Rom. â—0 14 and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and of a new spirit Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant before they can be internally and really in covenant In which speech he seemâ— to conceive external covenanting to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher else his reason had been vain But what non-sense scribling is this to term preaching or hearing covenanting A person may and we may conceive some do preach and hear who never externally covenant Sure covenanting is promising but so is not either preaching or hearing And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true no infant can be internally and really in Covenant who doth not preach or hear His talk is as vain Of the Lord being a God simply to some and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness not to all as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness or the being a God to his people contained not the greatest blessings contrary to Lu. 20.37 38. Heb. 11.16 His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14 is without proof and all shewed to be vain in the places before cited Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants yet not so still nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part 2. sect 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant if infants be in Covenant they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant If Rom. 11.16 be meant of holiness onely intentionally and not giving actual right to Baptism then the holiness there proves not infants to
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
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
call they leave and a new state on which they enter They are upon this call in a nearer relation to God then the rest of the world otherwise they were the same as ever and not called at all But there is a call in N. T. times c. Ergo. Answ. The consequence of the major is denied and to the proof of it I say 1. The call is not into Covenant with God in the sense which 〈◊〉 nâ—w in question For now the question is Whether there be a Covenant in the N. T. wherein God engageth himself to be God and to account for his people any besides the elect Now no man is called into Covenant in this sense for no man is called to engage God to be God c. it were an arrogant act to call or invite men to engage God it is God onely who is to do this and therefore if any were to be called to this it were God himself 2. It is not true that to conceive men to be called of God and not to be in Covenant with him is a full contradiction For though the calling mentioned Rom. 8.30 do always bring men into an estate of being in Covenant with God yet not the calling Matth. 20.16 22.14 For though the calling there have a Terminus a quo ad quem in the one resembled by calling to work in the Vineyard in the other by calling to a Wedding feast yet that every one that was called had a new state on which he did enter is not true For even those who refused to come were called Matth. 22.3 4. and the mâ—n who came in without a Wedding garment though he sate down yet was not in a state of Covenant or acceptance but was thrust out Nor is Mr. Bls. arguing of any force Men are called into Covenant with God therefore they are in Covenant with God For by the same reason it might be inferred the same men are called into the fellowship of Christ 1 Cor. 1.9 into the Kingdome and glory of God 1 Thes. 2.12 therefore some nonâ—elect persons are in the fellowship of Christ in the Kingdom and glory of God which is false Mr. Bl. adds Mat. 13.24 25 47. 3.12 2 Tim. 2.20 whence he argues thus A man in the Kingdome of Heaven is a man that is in Covenant with God unless he stood in a Covenant relation he could have no standing there and the comparison were very strangely drawn if this Kingdome thus set out had all that were good none bad in it Answ. It is granted that good and bad elect and non-elect are in the visible Church and so in the Kingdome of Heaven if by it be meant the visible Church but that a man in the Kingdome of Heaven is a man that is in Covenant with God that is a man in the visible Church is a man that is in Covenant wiâ—h God so as that God hath made a Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace to or with him is denied nor is or ever will be proved by Mr. Bl. A 4th text is Heb. 10.29 whence he saith These must needs be granted to be wicked yet cannot be denied to be in Covenant being sanctified with the bloud of the Covenant And then sets down three interpretations one of the Arminians that say they were sanctified internally and in Covenant but fall from both which he lets pass Another that Christ is said to be sanicâ—fied which seems to him to be very much strained A third by external separation for God and dedication to him which he embraceth Answ. Neither do I conceive thaâ— it is Christ who is said to be sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant For though I grant he is said to be sanctified Joh. 10.36 and to sanctifie himself Joh. 17.19 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to consecrate or make perfect Heb. 2.10 5.9 7.28 Yet I do not find 〈◊〉 phrase applied to Christ any where that he is said to be sanctified by the bloud of the Covenant but still applied to those that aâ—e bought by Christ Heb. 10.10 14. 13.12 Nor doth it so well suit with the Apostles aim of aggravating the sâ—n oâ— Apostacy from Christianity to mean it of Christs being sanctified as of the Apostates being sanctified heretofore by that bloud of the Covenant which he now counted common or unclean Nor do I conceive it can be meant of such a meer external sanctification whether by Baptism or external profession as Mr. Bl. and others conceive For 1. the sanctification here is the same with the sanctification meant ver 10 14. 13.12 But that sanctification iâ— more then such an external sanctification eâ—en such as perfects for ever them that are sanctified v. 14. and hath with it the writing and remission of sins according to the Covenant which is set down v. 15 16 17. 2. No where is such an external sanctification ascribed to the bloud of the Covenant but to ascribe to it such a meer external sanctification in any sanctified by it is to dâ—minish the vertue of it as if it did no more then the legal sacrifices contrary to the Apostles arguing Heb. 9.12 13 14. 3. Nor thirdly had it aggravated the Apostates sin to say that he had counted the bloud of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified onely externally a common thing For this had shewed no more evil in the disesteeâ— of Christs doatâ— then if the bloud of the legal sacrifices which did sanâ—â—ifie externally Heb. â— 12 had been counted unclean Therefore I conceive the sanctifying Heb. 10.29 meant of the effectual sanctifying before God meant Heb. 2.11 10.10 14. 1â— 12 but yet understand the sanctifying Heb 10 29. not of what was so really but of what was according to their own opinion and profession embracing the Christian Doctrine Even as Gal. 5.4 Whosoever are justified by the Law that is Whosoever of you do avouch that you are justified by the Law Luke 15.7 some are said to be just persons needing no repentance that is in their own opinion and profession as those Luke 18.9 And thus I conceive is that speech also to be understood 2 Pet. 2.1 and hereby the Arminian argument from both places for Universal Redemption and Apostacy of Saints is avoided Now these may be denied to have been in Covenant that is to have been of those to whom God promised Gospel grace sith they were onely sanctified according to their own opinion and profession yea though the sanctification were meant of being sanctified externally and this were from the bloud of the Covenant yet it follows not that those who are sanctified thus are in Covenant with God as the meaning of those is who say the elect onely are in Covenant that is the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onely to the elect Mr. Bl. adds Neither can all the noise which Mr. T. hath made about 1 Pet. 2.9 take off that text but that it speaks fully to hold up
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
studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be 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. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
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
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
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
of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
him and though I would not have Mr. B. of any man to turn Quaker yet I think he should rather tremble at the allegation of this text so impertinent to his purpose and not understand by Jerusalem Synecdochically the persons of years Nor would this be any more to contradict the Scripture at pleasure or to make it speak onely what we list then for him to understand by Jerusalem Synecdochically as he doth the Jewish nation or by Jerusalem to understand metonymically the people even the infants of the City To make the interpreting of speeches by tropes a contradicting them or making them speak what they list is such a â—oolery as I should rather have imagined to have come from some woman or Lay-preacher then from a man of such magnified learning as Mr. B. is had I not found it printed in his Book As for what he saith it is not fully a nation or city without infants though it were true as it is not yet that proves not that infants are meant in every speech of a nation or city any more then Math. 24.7 infants shall rise against infants because nation shall rise against nation or Matt. 21.10 infants were moved saying who is this because the whole city was moved saying who is this And hereby it may he seen how easily Christ might be understood without including infants and so much the more easily because though infants were in the Jewish Church yet Christ who spaâ—e not of gathering into the Jews Church but to himself in whose visible Church were no infants might be the more readily conceived to except infantâ— yea if he had meant infants could not be well understood by them And for his challenge I answer I dare thus expound his gathering of gathering onely the aged into his visible Church if Mr. B. imagine as he doth the similitude of a Hen to be used in vain if infants be not meant because the Hen gathereth the youngest by this reason Christ should use the similitude in vain if he would gather any other then infants sith the hen gathereth not hens and old cocks under her wings but onely little chickens Me thinks by leaving their house desolate Mr. B. should not mean the unchurching them For then it will follow that all the Jewish nation were unchurched for so he will have meant by Jerusalem which will overthrow many of his conceits about making Jewish and Gentile Churches one body the same the Church not broken off c. and prove afore he is aware the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership But enough of the silly insipid arguings if I may use his language of this Chapter let 's see whether the next have any better Ch. 13. My 8th arg saith Mr. B. is from Rev. 11.15 If the Kingdoms of this world either are or shal be the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ then infants also must be members of his Kingdom and consequently the gift and ordinance for their churchmembership is not repealed But the antecedent is the words of the text What can be said against this that is sense or reason If they say that by Kingdoms is meant some part of the Kingdoms excluding all infants I say such men need not look into the Scripture for their faith They may make their own Creed on these terms let Scripture say what it will I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdom and Jerusalem c. is taken for a part but if wee must take words always improperly because they are so taken sometime then wee shall not know how to undeâ—stand any Scripture and humane language will become useless and by this any man may put by any Testimony of Scripture though it were to prove the most fundamental truth As the Arrians put off all testimonies for the Godhead of Christ because Magistrates are called Gods But the circumstances of this text do evince to us that Christ speaketh properly of whole Jerusalem and whole Kingdoms and not improperly of any part onely 2. If they say that by Kingdom of Christ is not meant the Church of Christ they then speak against the constant phrase of the Scripture which cals Christs Kingdom his Church and Conversim Christ is King and Saviour of the same society What is Christs Kingdom but his Church I know the Kingdome of Christ is more large and more special but here it cannot be meant of his Kingdom in the larger sense as he is de jure onely King in regard of voluntary obedient subjects nor as hee over ruleth common societies and things For so the Kingdoms of the world were ever the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ and it could not be said that now they are become so So that for any thing I can see this text alone were sufficient to decide the controversie whether infants must bâ—e Church-members Answ. 1. I think this may bee said with sense and reason yea and clear evidence out of the text that by Kingdoms of the world Kingdoms of our Lord and his Châ—ist or as some copies have it the Kingdom of the world is become is not meant the men or members of either Kingdoms and so neither infant nor adult persons but the dominion power rule it self which the men of the world had usurped chiefly Antichrist which was Christs before of right but not till then become his by actual full and peaceable possession his enemies or the chief of them being noâ— till then subdued but tyranizing over his subjects And though I confess the term connotes men over whom Christ should have rule yet the persons ovâ—r whom Christ should rule then were not onely the Church but also his enemies whom he should subdue and keep under and judge Revel 2 26 27. That by Kingdome is meant Rule is manifest from many places Mâ—tth 6.10 13. John 18.36 Heb. 1.8 so Revel 17.17 18. And that this is the meaning here seems to me to be manifest 1. from that which is added and he shall reign for ever and ever which being the consequent of the Kingdome or Kingdomes of the world becomming our Lords and his Christ it shews that the Kingdomes note the rule or dominion whereby he reigns not the persons over whom he reigns 2. The same is confirmed from v. 17. where the same thing is expressed in those words We give thee thanks O Lord God almighty which art and wast and art to come because thou hast taken to thee thy great power and hast reigned And whâ—rein that is is expressed v. 18 in judging all rewarding his servants destroying the corrupters of the earth 3. From ch 12.10 where again the same or like thing is expressed thus Now is come salvation and strength or power and the Kingdome of our God and the power or authority of his Christ for the accuser of our brethren is cast down Where Kingdome and power are put together to shew that by the Kingdome is not meant the persons
deserved not an answer Ch. 19. he saith thus My 14 th arg is this If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law nor yet of the law of works then it is not repealed But it was no part of the ceremonial law nor meerly judicial nor part of the law of works as such therefore it is not repealed The consequence is evident seeing no other laws are repealed The antecedent I prove in its parts 1. None will say it was part of the law of works for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended But churchmembership was a mercy Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all which he hath not proved yet distinct from the law of Circumcision and this is my answer to this argument that there is no such law at all and this is enough Yet I add 2. If his preâ—ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works then it is not of the law of nature which before and after he asserts for the law and Covenant of nature is the law and Covenant of works which I think Mr. B. wil not deny surely it is not of grace in Christ Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall but such is the law of nature Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended is a dictate of Divines which needs proof That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works is proved before sect 43. But that yeelded some mercy Levit. 4.2 20 26 31 35. Numb 15.22 23 24 28. Ergo. 4. How far and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy and how it is otherwise now is shewed before sect 64 66. 2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law then 1. let them shew what it was a type of and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it to be so if they can Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremonial nor every ceremonial thing to be typical Or if it be so yet I am sure of every thing ceremonial which was typical Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular at least he cannot prove it When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes bowls snuffers and other utensils about the tabernacle and of every thing appointed concerning them their colour fashion mettal c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task But till then it is enough to tell him that to it with other things typified Christ Col. 2.17 succeeded The churchmembership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough let Mr. B. answer and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants pag. 112.113 114 115 116 c. 2. Saith he If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony then the Church it self should be but a ceremony And so the Church in Abrahamâ— family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah Melchizedech Sem Job Lot c. which were more then ceremonies Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial and yet not the materials that is the men a ceremony so churchmembership might be a ceremony yet not the churchmembers But I do not term either the one or the other a ceâ—emony it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered 3. Saith he And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law appears thus 1. As was last said then also the Church in Abrahams family should be more vile then the aforesaid for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy as we call the judicials Answ. Iâ— it weâ—e by any law that infants were Churchmembers it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the â—hree sorts of the Mosaical laws which Divines do so distinguish And to the argument I say 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family it is not made a piece of meer civil policy not Ecclâ—siastical for the Jewâ— Commonwealth was a holy policy and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer judicial laws as the constitution of the Sanhedâ—in and other things are and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah c. we cannot resolve sith we find little or nothing of them no mention of Noahs infants or Melchizedecs Sems Jobs or Lots except Ammâ—n and Moab nothing said of their Churchmembership or of the government of the families what it was or by what law 2. Saith he It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial upon which meer judicials are built why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial Answ. It can be shewn that if there be such a law it is a meer judicial law because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel as it is termed Ephes. 2.12 and the entring of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people and not by the priests And this we daâ—e say of the womens visible Churchmembership as well as the infants and that neither of them were by a moral law oâ— Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies 3. Saiâ—h he It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects And Mr. T. hath told me his judgement that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers I thinke this is past denial Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature no nor of the law of nations if they were all other government then of Kings were against these laws much less can it be oâ— the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects According to my judgment the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally but by institution and therefore according to my grounds it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers So that I find none oâ— these things past denial 4. Saith he The promise that took them in and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of â—aith as is proved before therefore not a meer judicial Answ. Neither were 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.
though which I somewhat marvel at they follow therein the vulgar Latine For the Tigurine Divines note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek signifies the flock not the fold And Beza excepts against the vulgar for it and against the Romanists who would have that one fâ—ld to be Rome And Grotius observes that the speech is proverbial One flock one shepheard to which he makes Ezek. 37.24 to be like Now that the one flock is not the meer visible Church but the invisible it appears from many things in the Text that Christ laid down his life for them that they follow him hear his voyce his Father and he knows them distinguishingly from others who do not believe because they are not of his sheep that he gives them eternal life none can pluck them out of his Fathers hands v. 14 15 16 26 27 28 29. out of which many Protestant Divines gather absolute election particular redemption effectual conversion and perseverance against Arminians And Diodati in his annot on Joh. 10 16. hath it thus Other sheep namely the elect among the Gentiles who are to be called by the Gospel and incorporated into the Church with the elect of the Jewish nation One body 1 Cor. 12.13 one new man Ephes. 2.15 are the invisible Church as is shewed before Matth. 8.11 The Kingdome of heaven is the Kingdome of glory Matth. 21.43 The Kingdome of God is either the Gospel by a metonymy or the rule of God in their hearts which was taken from them that is that people with whose ancestors it was though not in those persons from whom it was taken The visible Church cannot be meant by the Kingdome for the fruits of the Kingdome are not the fruits of the meer visible Church they are not bare profession but real faith holiness and obedience which are fruits of the spirit not of the Church or if of any Church of the invisible not the meer visible And though all invisible members bring forth fruit yet that nation which had invisible members bringing forth fruit in a former age may in an after age not bring forth fruit and for that reason the Church invisible may be taken from them with whom it was in respect of their ancestors To what I said If the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews then they should have been circumcised c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Mr. Bl replies That is of no force as though we may not be in the same Kingdome and yet under a new way of administration Law-givers on earth are sometimes pleased to change their Laws and so doth the Law-giver of Heaven or if he will limit his instance to Circumcision taking in no other Laws The same house may have a new door or porch Let Mr. T. then know that he is in the same visible Kingdome as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel were Answ. That which Mr. Bl. saith of the lameness of a Kingdome under a new way of administration of Law givers changing their laws of Gods doing so the identity of a house with a new door is all granted but doth not take away the force of my reason unless he could shew that any were graffed or to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish without Circumcision if he were a male Doth not Mr. Bl. maintain here in answer to my 4th argument that we are partakers of the same outward priviledges and ordinances with the Jews as he expounds Rom. 11.17 which opposeth his speech here of a new way Doth not Scripture term the Jewish Church or people the Circumcision because those that were in that Church if male were circumcised Was not Cornelius taken for unclean and not of that Church because uncircumcised or was he ever in the Jewish Church after his Baptism God might admit into the Jewish Church another way then by Circumcision but Mr. Bl. cannot shew he or the Jews did so We are in the same invisible Kingdome of true believers and elect persons with Abraham Isaac and Jacob but I do not yet know by any thing Mr. Bl. hath hitherto said that I am in the same visible Kingdome with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel Every one in the visible Kingdome of Israel after the flesh did partake of the Passeover the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the the sacrifices partakers of the altar Which intimates that Israel after the flesh did then when he wrote eat of the sacrifices which Christians did not and therefore were not adjoyned to Israel after the flesh but in that very place v 16 17. distinguished from them I take Mr. Bls. assertion to infer Jadâ—ism and if he or any other be not satisfied by my answer to Mr. Cobbet I have more reason to impute it to their prejudice then to defect in my answer SECT LXXVI My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions Vindic. Faed ch 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit ch 7. MR. Bl. ch 39. avoucheth still his sense of federal holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 I proceed to view what he saith Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give I shall here transcribe it Let him not put her away let her not leave him unbelief breaks not the marriage bond â—enders it not a nullity Religion being not of the substance of marriage But what he saith that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles is fictitious For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself shews that their scruple arose not from fear of their childrens condition but the nullity of their marriage or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple Yea Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit when he saith Reason is strong for this for they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church state and condition being a priviledge communicable and descendable from parent to child If the parent were without and of the Gentiles the child was ever such and in case they were of the people of God their children were reckoned so in like manner Now parents being divided the one holy the other unclean they feared that the issue would follow the worser part a sâ—ain would lie upon them they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent In a like case it had been so determined Ezra 10.3 For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state they knew that the
promise that the seed of Abraham should possess the gates of their enemies though his exposition be granted I see not what advantage it gives him for proof of infant Baptism and therefore let it pass onely I take notice that when p. 43. he makes the multiplying of the seed of Abraham and the conquest of the world to be a spiritual work to be effected by the sword of the spirit the word of God it follows that it is to be done by preachers rather then by parents and consequently not in that way Mr. C. imagines but in the way which Christ took by sending his Apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature What he saith p. 45. of the meaning of Gen. 9.26 hath been shewed before to be uncertain and to be proved false by the History of the Church in that in Affrica the posterity of Cham were in the Church of Christ as well as Shems and Japhets posterity and how Abrahams seed shall fill the world at last and rule over it is so doubtfull as that I conceive no certainty can be thence deduced The conceit of the four Kings Gen. 14. as if their people became afterwards the four Monarchies is such a fancy as a waking man that knows the distance between Rome Greece and Canaan and the voyage they must take by sea and other circumstances which the story Gen. 14. and other Histories suggest will take onely for a dream Mr. Cs. gloss p. 50. on the words of Christ Mark 10.15 Who soever shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little child that is as a child receiveth it shall not enter therein whether he mean iâ— of the visible Church or Kingdome of glory it cannot be true For let the way of entring the Kingdome of God be by birth or Baptism or any other way yet a true believer by faith and profession may enter into the Kingdome of God in a way different from that a little child receives it in who hath no understanding of Christ And though both be passive in the first work on their souls yet believers of age are not meerly pâ—ssive as little children who have no understanding at all of Christ. But for the true meaning of Christ I need say no more but refer the Reader to Christs words Matth. 18.4 whence the meaning appears to be that no person not endued with that qualification of self-humbling of which a little child is a fit embleme Psal. 131.2 shall become an inheritour of glory Nor is there any proof made by Mr. C. of his dictate that because Christ would that little children also should be members of his Kingdome therefore hath he made it one branch of the Gospel of this Kingdome that the families of the righteous shall be blessed His reason he gives p. 51. is no reason for God might have gone further then ordinarily to cast elect children upon elect parents even to have done so universally and perpetually and yet we might no more have been sons of God by natural generation and as much by nature born children of wrath as now we are conceived Though God had not so far as Mr. C. imagines confined his choice to families kindreds and nations his elect had not been destitute of means of education sith God could have provided Catechists Preachers and others to that end in other families kindreds and naâ—ions Sure in some ages of the Church there was so little provision made to that end in families kindreds and nations that it appears that almost all the means of education was from Monasteries in Scotland and Ireland by the Histories that remain as may be seen by Seldens Epistle before the Histories collected by Twisden Ushers relation of the Irish Religion and elsewhere If it were the most natural and ready way to multiply the spiritual seed for the increase of Gods Kingdome by making believers a blessing to families and nations as Mr. C. saith p. 52. sure God by sending Apostles and not using Kings and Masters of families for that end omitted the readiest and most natural way and I see not why it should be judged the best way to propagate the Gospel to gather Churches out of Parishes and set Pastors over them or to send itinerant preachers but to reduce all Churches to family and national Churches and to make Kings and Masters of families Elders and Rulers over them Nor do I find that either God so casts the lot of his Saints together as Mr. C. imagines or that by that means the gifts of Gods people are improved and light increased but by raising up holy Teachers and Pastors and associating of the Saints from their several dwellings into a well ordered assembly If as Mr. C. saith p. 55. the Israelites destroyed the Canaanites not by common rules of righteousness among men but by special revelation and command from God then either they did it not by the promise Gen. 22.17 or that promise did not assure them of the possession of Canaan by common rules of justice as Mr. C. conceives That the people of God in the times of the N. T. may not make war against Antichrist or Babylon and their party as an Anathema but upon a natural and civil account for the just liberties opposed and invaded by them may be well doubted considering sundry passages which are Rev. 17.16 17. 18.6 24. That the dominion which the Saints shall at last obtain shall need no force either to get or maintain it but it shall naturally fall upon them as from other causes so also by reason of theâ—r number according to the law of nature and common rules of righteousness is not proved from Isa. 2.3 and how much it may tend to denying the lawfulness of Christians fighting in wars especially if the chief or onely cause be to preserve the Godly from oppressions in Religion is to be considâ—red And that power is naturally devolved upon the Saints because of their numbers as p. 60. is intimated seems to me an unsafe speech as resting on this position That power is naturally devolved on the greatest number It is enough that I have onely by the way noted these things that what men preach and print may be better considered I pass on to the examining of Mr. Cs. application SECT LXXIX Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Cs. additional Promise nor was Abraham thence termed Father of Believers THe first thing Mr. C. observes is that in the promise to Abraham there 's an addition made to the former promise to Adam Gen. 3.15 which I grant but not such an addition as Mr. C. conceivs The next is that to this promise of making believers blessings to families and nations God made an addition of the seal of Circumcision and the application of this seal to infants is part of the seâ—l thereby signifying and confirming that promise of such blessing So Gen. 17.10 14. Had not the application of it to the infant been part of the token of the Covenant the childs
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
standard properly but metaphorically and therefore it follows upon Mr. Crs grant that the application of that one phrase of bringing their sons in their arms and daughters on shoulders according to the proper sense of the words is not right Nor is his endeavour to fit the metaphor to infant Baptism any better though in the Low Countries it were true that the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilest his father is in the service of the State is by the courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the souldiers List on his birth-day and by the allowance of the State receives pay from the time of his nativity as he scribbles out of Fullers frivolous Treatise termed Infants Advocate p. 99. For 1. if infants be listed yet no standard is set up or hand lifted up to the people to bring them nor are they brought in their arms or bosoms in the Low Countries 2. Nor was any such usage among the Jews or Gentiles in Isaiahs time to whiâ—h he might bee conceived to allude and it is too ridiculous to go about as Mr. Cr. doth to explain a metaphor alluding to an use in Isaiahs time by an use no where shewed to be but in the Low Countries in our time That Mr. Gataker in the cause of infant Baptism interprets innumerable places against me â—s an untruth Though Esther were a â—ew yet a Queen of the Gentiles and â—â—ese things foretold Isa 49.22 23. were fulfilled in Cyrus time and iâ— Ahasuerus Artaxerxes and Darius time also yea and aâ—ter tâ—em in Alexander the Great and some of his successors and their Queens as Grotius conceives in his Annotations who also and Mr. Gataker shew how the prediction of bowing down and licking the dust of the Jews feet was fulfilled though not in Esthers time as I said the prophesie of Queens being a nursing mother to the Jews was yet in the times after afore Christs incarnation And for Mr. Crs. argument from v. 1 6 7 8 20 21. let him form it as strong as he can yet he will never prove that Isa. â—9 22 is a prophesie of infants visible Churchmembership in the times of the Gospel or their bringing to Baptism nor was I by any argument of Mr. Cr. forced to surrender up this hold that Isa. 49.22 23. is a prophesie of the return of the Jewes from the Babylonish captivity and their prosperity in Judea after their return aâ—ore Christs inearnation and yet were it understood of the times of the Gospel I shewed how it might be understood of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annotations which Mr. Cr. abusively puts into an argument as if it were alledged thus Junius says so thâ—reâ—ore it is so and denies the antecedent and conseâ—uent But neither was the consequent mine nor the antecedent as Mr. Cr. sets it down But this Janius saith that the standard Isa. 49.22 is the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth Rom. 1.16 and therefore it is meant of perswading grown men by the preaching of the Gospel and that all those things are allegorically spoken of the amplitude of Christs spiritual Kingdome and therefore not of bringing infants to baptism And for Cornelius a Lapide Hierome Cyril Haymo if they held it fulfilled in Gospel times and extended the words to grown men though they were for infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism yet they overthrow Mr. Crs. argument from thence which is of no force unless the words be understood onely of Gospel times and of infants being brought to some visible Ordinance as Baptism the contrary whereof his own Authors shew and himself grants and therefore I take all Mr. Crs. reasoning in the Dispute and this Reply from Isa. 49.22 to be meâ—r cavilling and still think it meet to refer the Reader for the discerning of my interpretation whether right or no and my yeelding that the words may be accommodated to the calling of the Gentiles without any oppositeness to my interpretation or appositeness to Mr. Crs. inference whether true or not to Mr. Gatakers Annotations which for no other reason but because however otherwise he differ from me I take to be the exactest and the most incomparable learned on that part of Scripture of any I know To Mr. Crs. defence Sect. 12. of his alleging thus Isa. 65.20 There shall be no more an infant of dayes that is infants shall noâ— be uncapable of the seal against my answer impliedly denyâ—ng the consequence and saying it hath no proof but his dictate which is thus To which it were sufficient reply to say it hath no disproof but his dictate which is without all shew of prohability there being not a word of any such thing as oâ—tward peace increase possession and long life to the Jews unless in the type aâ—d that scarce probable but of the glorious estate of the times of the Gospel held out in outward ordinances as shall appear I oppose 1. that I needed bring no other disproof but denial being a respondent but it is necessary hee should make good his sense if hee will inferre his conclusion thence 2. My disproof was right for v. 18 â—9 speaks of the outward peace of Jerusalem and her people their long life increase building planting possession opposite to their former troubles v. 16. are expressed v. 20.21 22 23. not a word of outward ordinances Against this saith Mr. Cr. And in Isa. 65.20 there is need of such an interpretation for as v. 17. the new heavenâ— and new earth and 18 19. creation and Jerusâ—lem were analogical and not proper so the 20. v. is wholly tropâ—cal and mystical There shall be no more thence an infant of days How can thiâ— be understood litterally did not infants after as well as unâ—er the captivity make up their weeke of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to some thing under the Jewish Paedagogy and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabbath had gone over it and therefore according to Divine institution Circumcision was not tiâ—l the 8th day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Mr. Gatakers descant on these wordâ— but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whoâ—e imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem Answ. That Jerusalem is analogical is not proved nor doth it follow v. 17. is tropical therefore also v. 20. any more then Isa. 11 6 7 8. is allegorical therefore also v. 2 3 4 5 9. Mr. Gatakers sense is plainly â—et down without any imposture in his Annotations which is this There shall be no more thence brought to burial by reason of untimely ends as formerly a child that hath not fulfilled hiâ— dayes but shall live and attain to his just growth and full 〈◊〉 oâ— years This sense is noâ— infringed by any thing Mr. Cr. saâ—th yea
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
outward and reputative adoption though not saving graces belongs to all Besides what ground hath Mr. G. to call this promise the Gospel-covenant Rom. 1.16 17. Gal. 3.8 9 c. the Gospel-covenant is The just shall live by faith it is that which contains promise of sanctification remission of sins c. Hebrews 8 10 11 12. 10.16 17. Matthew 26.28 The everlasting covenant that hath the sure mercies of David Isaiah 55.3 Acts 13.34 38 39. Hebrews 13.20 and of which Jesus is the Surety or Mediator Hebrews 7.22 12.24 what a mockage then is this of people to tell them the Covenant of grace is made to their children and the Cospel-covenant is extended to them and that God hath promised to be their God and that they are confederate with their parents and yet in fine all that they dare assert is God hath promised to the seed of believers an external reputative adoption though not real such chaff they catch their auditors with But is this promise that God will settle his Church in Abrahams family and separate them from the rest of the World as light from darkness as Mr. G. expresly makes it indeed the Gospel-Covenant I dare freely say it is Jewish Anti-evangelical directly opposite to the Gospel-covenant For the Gospel-covenant is That God would bless all Nations in Abraham through faith Gal. 3.8 9. Gentiles as well as Jews yea the Gentile-believers instead of the Jews broken off by unbelief If then this be the Gospel covenant I will be the God of thy seed that is in Mr. Gs. sense I will separate Abrahams family from the rest of the world to be my Church then the Church under the Gospel covenant is not Catholick contrary to the article of the Creed and so the Gospel-covenant continues the middle wall of partition But perhaps Master Geree helps the matter in that which followeth For the second thing saith he the extent of this privilege though there were something in it peculiar to Abraham yet was it not limitted to him alone but those that were of Abraham inherited his promise to have God their God and the God of their seed As what was said to Joshua Josh. 1.5 I will not leave thee nor forsake thee was not bounded to his person but applicable to all conscientious Israelites yea to all Christians in Gods way and work as the Apostle applieth it Heb. 13.5 So this privilege or the Covenant to have God the God of their seed is to be applyed to all Israelites yea to all of any nation that have his faith and tread in his steps they that do the work of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the Covenant Answ. Mr. G. Will have the promise I will be a God to thy seed to promise the settling of the Church in Abrahams family separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness if this be so how can it be a promise to another nation that their children should be adopted outwardly and reputatively For if by this promise Abrahams natural posterity have a privilege whereby they are sethis promise is common to other nations with them But saith he The promise parated from all other nations surely it s no better than a contradiction to say to Joshua Iosh. 1.5 was not bounded to his person Heb. 13.5 which I grant nor do I doubt but promises made to Abraham David Joshua c do belong to all true believers where the holy Ghost doth so expound them and where the promise is of a thing which other Scriptures do clear to belong to them But there is no such thing in the promise of Gen. 17.7 Master Geree brings nothing but his own assertion to prove it nor do I know any thing brought by any else but what the Author of the little book intitled Infants baptism proved lawful by Scripture printed Anno 1644. hath Who thus argued That which was promised to Abraham as a believer is promised to every believer But God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed as a believer Ergo To which I answered if as be taken reduplicatively so as that the meaning be under that formal consideration to him being a believer and to every one being a believer as to him I deny the Major it was not made to him as a believer simply under that consideration but though it were made upon his faith as a motive of making that covenant with him yet not under that formal consideration simply as a believer so as that the covenant should be said to be made to every believer as to him As in like manner though Peter Matthew 16 18 19 had the promise of building the Church and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and of binding and loosing conferred on him by reason of his confession of Christ verse 16 yet every one that confesseth Christ as he did hath not that that promise If any ask how it was made to Abraham I answer so far as concerns the spiritual part it is cleer from Romans 4 11 12 16 18 that it was made to him as Father of believers and in that construction though it belong to Gentiles yet it belongs onely to believing elect Gentiles Romans 9 7 8 Galatians 3 29 or to Christ whether personal or mystical verse 16. But that it belongs not in that sense no not to all or any either of Jews or Gentiles who are not elect is apparent from Romans 9 7 8 no meer formal professor can lay claim to it As for the promise of outward privileges as to be of the visible Church to have the Ordinances of Gods worship so the promise is made to Abraham as a natural Father of his inheriting posterity by Isaac and to that seed by Isaac which was to inherit in Abrahams family and to that natural seed which God would bring out of Egypt and settle in Canaan and this was but unto the time of reformation as it is termed Heb. chap. 9. vers 10. Now that those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed should be expounded thus I will be the God of every Gentile believer either in profession or reality that his natural posterity should be Gods visible Church or visible Church-members hath not the least intimation in Scripture but much against it nor can be brought by any shew of right construction to be the meaning For I would know under which term of these thee or thy seed every such natural childe even an infant shauld be meant under thy seed they must say but the Scripture placeth believers themselves and those only reall believers under that term as is proved before and other places speak to like purpose John 8.39 Matth. 3.9 Luke 19.9 therefore without addition to the text believers natural seed are not there placed Nor were the promise true in Mr. Gerees sense For God doth not make good the promise in that sense to every believer and his
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
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
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
Moses it follows not that the covenant must be the covenant of Evangelicall grace For in Moses his renewing the covenant in the land of Moab there 's a promise of reduction of them Deut. 30.3 which being upon condition of their returning to God and obeying his voyce according to all that Moses commanded that day must be understood of the Covenant of the Law which had its promises of such temporall favours and not of the covenant of Evangelical grace That which Mr. C. saith That he did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil this covenant the Churches covenant abstractively considered v. 61. I know not what sense to make of it There 's not a word of Church-covenant or investure with it The plain meaning is either this Not by that covenant of the Law which thou hast broken but by the new covenant of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. in locum Diodati the new Annot. or this as Piscat Schol. in locum not because thou art worthy of this aggregation of the nations as if thou hadst kept covenant with me as if he had said but of my grace or free favour or as Grotius It is a Metonymy as if it were said not because on thy part thou hast stood to the covenant I have seen Ezek 36. from v. 17. to the chapters end and I see nothing there to Mr C. his purpose to prove a bare externall being in the covenant of grace There 's not the word Covenant in all the passage But on the contrary there are promises v. 25 26 27. of a new heart giving his Spirit which as Mr. B. saith truly is proper to the elect and notes an internall being in the covenant of grace There 's little but muddiness and impertinency in the rest He speaks of an externall being in Christ John 15.2 which is not denied in respect of profession of those that are so and of an externall partaking of Christ for which it's likely he cites not as it is printed Heb. 13.14 but Heb. 3.14 But sure that partaking is a saving partaking to which is required the holding fast to the end the beginning of our confidence For an external partaking may be without condition The Jewish refusers Ios. 1.11 are called Christs own either by kindred or right to them from the old engagements of them to be his by their Ancestors or by vertue of this redeeming them from Aegypt the land of the North or some other way Surely not because they did externally belong to Christ or were externally in the covenant of grace were to be baptized For they expresly denied Christ and rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized by Iohn Luke 7 30. I grant there is an externall being called Matth 22.14 but this not competent to infants I doubt whether Heb 10 29 be to be interpreted of an externall being sanctified quoad homines in respect of others by the bloâ—d of the Covenant The New Annot say thus In regard of the meritorious sufficient satisfaction purchased by it Piscat Schol. in locum per quem vide batur esse sanctificatus quamdiu scil Christum confitebatur Dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is meant of the same sanctification of which he speaks in the same chapter v. 10.14 ch 13 12 to wit an effectuall sanctification by remission of sins and purging their consciences from dead works chap 9 14 which alone and not an externall sanctificacion I find ascribed to the blood of the Covenant and the person there said to be sanctified with this sanctification not in reality but according to his profession and opinion of himself as Luke 15.7 some are said to be just persons that need no repentance that is according to their own profession and opinion The purging from sin 2 Pet. 1.9 was externall I grant not inward in the heart yet it was not a mere purging by the outward ordinance of baptism but their own profession and partiall reformation of themselves not competent to infants 2 Pet 2. â— It 's doubtâ—ful whether it note an external being purchased by Christ or a purchase by Christ onely sufficient or an effectuall purchase yet said of them onely according to what they professed and conceived of themselves as Luke 15 7 Heb 10 29 or others conceived of them That Deut 33 3 should be meant of an externall Saintship is supposed not proved though it it were applied to the body of Israel yet it might be understood in respect of the better part that the people were called Gods Saints Psa 50 5 The Saints of God and those that had made a covenant with him by Sacrifice were Israel vers 7 it is true there were many hypocrites but as the new Annot God in respect of his elect calleth the whole body Holy Saints and his people not meerly from an externall Saintship To which I add if it be referred to the covenant Exod 24.8 to which Mr Ainsworth in his Note on the place directs it was the covenant of the law not the covenant of grace which is meant Psal 50 5 It is true There are invisible Churches which are as Isaac was Children of the Promise Gal 4 28 Children of the Gospel-church v. 31 26. But that this should be verefied in all the members of the Galatian Churches unto whom Paul wrot that Episte Gal 1 2 is not true nor is it proved by Mr C that the Aposâ—â—e spake what he saith v 28 31 of every member of the Churches of Galatia It is true that Ierusalem above is the mother of us all but that us all should signifie every profession of the faith in the Churches of Galatia is false for then every one of them should be born after the spirit v 29. and inherit v. 3â— The new Annot on Gal 4.24.6 therefore say The Christian Church is the mother of all the faithfull who are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven whether they be Iâ—wes or Gentiles So that to be mother of us all Gal. 4.26 is not to be mother of every professed Christian in Galatia but of so many as held the right faith with Paul and were born after the Spirit Thus in like maner Rom 8 3 21 when it is said who spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all it is not meant of every professor of Faith in Rome but all the elect and true believers as that which follows in the same verse and verse 33 shewes So that we need not assert eiâ—her that every professor of faith in the Galatian Churches was a child of the Jerusalem above effectually and savingly or that there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites which yet may be true notwithstanding the Parables Matth 13 and 25. or 1 Tim 3 15. compared with 2 Tim 2 20 oâ— that such as are savingly interessed in the Covenant of grace should fall from grace or that all were externally and
determination Gal. 2. 5.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Yea if it had been foretold that the Gentiles should come and joyn themselves to the visible Church Jewish which began in Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Lord Christ had foretold that conjunction which was so far from proving true in the event that they who did come to Christ were persecuted and cast out of that Church Gal. 4.29 1 Thes. 2.15.5 Hence it follows that the children of the Kingdome are not so called because they were in that Kingdome of heaven which is there meant for then they had never been cast out but they are called children of the Kingdome because as Diodati notes by the prerogative of Gods Covenant the Jews seemed to be heirs of this Kingdome or as the new Annot as ch 9.15 who were born of those parents to whâ—m the Kingdome was promised and by vertue of the Covenant Rom. â— 4 it had still belonged to them had they not forfeited it by their unbelief and wickedness Pisch sch Filios verò regni id est Judaeos qui hacteniâ—s per aliquot saecula ad regnum illud coelorum vocati sunt vocantur Beza Annot. Filios regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id est indigenas quos vocant vulgò naturales subjectos Intelligit autem Dei regnum ad quod pertinebant in generâ— quicunque erant ex Abrahae genere cum longè alia sit ratio coram Deo censendi filios Abrahae nimirùm ex fide So that they were children of the Kingdome not before God in actual title or possession but onely in appearance to men and likelihood considering their descent and the first manifestation of Christ and the Gospel to that people 6. Out of this it appears that a man may be said to be â—ast out of the Kingdome of heaven who was never in actually but onely in possibility according to what was apparent to men and consequently Mr. Bls. propositions are not true in his precedent argument 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 nor the argument good Ishmael was cast out of Covenant therefore once in Nor is it seldome that men are said to be brought up from the grave as Psal. 30.3 and to be redeemed from the grave and hell who were never in but onely in danger of it But Mr. Bl. hath yet a fourth text which was his text in his Birth-priviledge it is Gal 2.15 From whence after some explication given of the text he tâ—us argues That which is a priviledge of nature or birth belongs to the natural issue that cannot be denied But to be in Covenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners is a priviledge of nature or birth therefore this priviledge belongs to the natural issue Ans. To be in covenant with God may be understood either in respect of the Covenant with Abraham Gen 17. or the Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 19. To be in the Covenant Gen 17. may be in respect of Evangelical benefits or of domestick and political benefits or priviledges as to bee accounted members of the Israelitish nation and so of that church to have the service of God among them the law among them education under it freedome from idolatry and other pollutions of the Gentiles To be as a people holy may be understood either of holiness by inward sanctification called circumcision of the heart or of outward holiness in being distinguished from other people as set apart visibly for God whether in reputation or truth either by Gods distinction or by an outward signe or by their own profession I grant the minor of being in Covenant either Exod. 19. or Gen. 17. in respect of the domestick and political benefits at least some of them and to be a holy people exceeding others that are without as sinners if understood of outward holiness in reputation or truth by Gods distinction and by the outward signe of Circumcision was I do not grant is a privilâ—dge of nature or birth and accordingly grant the conclusion that this priviledge did I do not say doth belong to the natural issue I do not say to all of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob and was proper to the Jews and no more can be gathered from Gal. 2.15 there 's not a word of the same priviledge as belonging to the natural posteâ—ity of believing Gentiles But the minor is denied if understood of Evangelical benefits and of holiness inward of which alone the question should have been formed his position being in full opposition to my words nor is it proved out of the text himself expounding Jews by nature that is by birth and off spring of a nation that is holy though in themselves sinners reputed an holy people a people by covenant holy to the Lord which they might be though to be in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 and as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners by inward holiness be not a priviledge of nature or birth But Mr. Bl. thinks my grant involves me in not a few contradictions 1. To what I say Exercit. pag. 3. the natural seed inherit onely domestick and civil benefits But Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth me the word onely is Mr. Bls. addition not mine as the Reader that shall read the words may perceive 2. To what I am wont to deny that birth entitles any to such priviledges as interest in Circumcision and observance of Moses law But this is another of Mr. Bls. forged calumnies let him shew if he can that I say so any where and he deserves some credit if not let him suffer as a Calumniator 3. That I deny the natural seed any promise of spiritual mercies which is another forgery of his like the former 4. That I say this was proper to the Jews in that Church state who had prerogatives peculiar to them And then saith thus And here we urge it no further and it fully concludes Mr. T. in a contradiction that will have the natural seed of Abraham and no other then his spiritual seed to be entituled to such priviledges Here 's more of his forgery that I say no other then Abrahams spiritâ—ul seed are entituled to such priviledges as were proper to the Jews in that Church state who had prerogatives peculiar to them Let him shew any such thing in my writing or let him as he and his fellow Paedobaptist Mr. Robert Baillee who hath in like sort wronged me as they ought testifie their repentance by righting me Otherwise the Lord will to their shame discover their evil dealing iâ— their own conscience be so blinde or so hard as to slight such a sin He concludes thus Any one of these arguments severally much more all â—ointly make good this position that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob are in that great Charter vouchsafed of God taken into Covenant
apprehend him to be their enemy they abhor the very name and remembrance of him If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition If they know any temptation to be from him so far they dislike it and abhor it though for the thing presented they may cherish it This is not special saving grace but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace and to our more effectual resisting of temptations and entertaining the help tâ—at is offered us against them when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity amity with him as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome that proveth not that it was not naturally there but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankinde against the diabolical nature so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity malignity and works Vide Pareum in locum God will put an enmity by his Laws both natural and positive making it the duty of mankinde to take Satan for their enemy to resist and use him as an enemy and fight against him and abhor his works and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him to take his colours and to be of his Army And this being spoken of the common world of mankinde and not onely of the elect for it is not they onely that are obliged to this hostility and warfare belongeth to each one according to their capacities and therefore infants being at the parents disâ—ose it is they that are to list them in this army against the enemy of mankinde of which more anon 6. A third and higâ—er enmity is yet here comprehended and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works which may bee called natural as it is the bent or bias of our new nature This God giveth onely to his chosen and not to all And it containeth not onely their consent to list themselves in his army against satan but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his worâ—s universally to the death with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers Hâ—re take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity As God is one in three and in his entity hath unity verity and goodness and in his blessed nature hath posse scire velle power wisdome and love so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures as absolute proprietary as soveraign ruler and as most gracious benefactour As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical As soveraign Ruler he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty that we should be listed in his army profess open hostility against satan and fight against him to the death As Benefactor he giveth special grace to do this to his chosen As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all As he is Rector of all but not by the same Laws as to positives so he obligeth all to this hostility but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list and makes a difference If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to bee put in all and therefore the same persons in which it is put I answer 1. there 's no proof of either A general command or promise to a community may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community though that difference be not expressed For the nature of the subject may prove it And 2. experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant proves the difference before mentioned And it 's well known 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters 2. And that the mystery of grace was to bee opened by degrees and so but darkly at the first that it is no wonder if we find the whole sum of the Gospel here coucht-up in so narrow a room and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes 7. That wee may certainly know that this promise speaks not onely of the enmity that Christ himself should have to satan and doth not engage a General without an army God doth here expresly mention the woman her self saying I will put enmity between thee and the woman so that as shee stood in a threefold respect she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity 1. As she is the root of humane nature from whence all mankinde must spring she is possest with the natural enmity to the diabolical nature and this to bee naturally convayed or propagated 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern and her self with her husband who no doubt was also included in the promise were the whole then existent race of mankinde so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her infant progeny in the Redeemers army against the proclaimed enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God she received the habitual enmity of sanctification And this is not in her power to propagate though shâ—e may use some means that are appointed thereto and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means I will not now stand to discuss 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natâ—raâ— enmity against the Divel himself that are the Church of Christ For this is but a common preparative which is in all Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of satan But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against satan by the obliged person are visible members and all that are by sanctification at a hearty enmity habitual or actual with the Kingdome of satan are members of the Church called mystical or invisible This I put as granted 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdome for Satan and his Kingdome are become themselves the seed of the Serpent And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ. This much I suppose as out of
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
Ephes. 2.14 and the removing the enmity v. 16. Jews and Gentiles are not made one visible Church after the Jewish frame but one by faith and by it the Gentiles are clâ—ansed Aâ—â—s 15.9 not a whole nation parents and children as the Jewish Church but believers repenting Acts 11.17 18. one body one Lord one faith one baptism c. Eph. 4.5 6. proves not the Gentile and Jewish Church visible to be the same but the invisible of both Gal. 6.15 hath not a word tending to prove that there is the same reason of Jews and Gentiles infant visible churchmembership but of the equal interest in Christ of Gentiles who are new câ—eatures as of the Jews It is no part of Pauls Epistles and therefore not much of their substance to prove the taking in of the Gentiles and graffing them into the Olive which the Jews were of if by it were meant the visible Church Jewish but it is most palpably false The discipling nations the Kingdoms of the world becomming Christs Rev. 11.15 prove not infantâ— discipleship or churchmembership All hitherto brought by Mr. B. hath yeilded no sufficient proof let 's view the rest SECT LXX Mr. Bs. 16th and 17th arg from the promise of mercy Exod. 20.6 and of blessing Psal. 37.26 are answered CH. 21. saith Mr. B. The 16th arg then is this Exod. 20.5 6. From hence I argue thus If God have made over this mercy of Churchmembership in the moral law to the children of all that love and obey him then it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased But God hath made over this mercy in his moral law to the children of all that love and obey him therefore it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased Nothing but the antecedent here needeth proof Every man I think among us will confess that the moral law was not proper to the Jews and that it is not ceased Even the most of the Antinomians confess the ten Commandments are in force as the law of Christ though not as the law of Moses However if they be against the preceptive part of the law yet sure they will not bee against the promissary part Though there be some clauses that were suted to the Jews peculiarly yet I never yet met with man that would say this was so If the ten Commandments be not currant proof there is no disputing with them out of Scripture Answ. There is need of proof of more then the antecedent to make this argument good For 1. the conclusion is not that which Mr. B. should prove Churchmembership and visible Churchmembership children and infant children being not all one God may shew the mercy of Churchmembership to infants and yet not make over to them visible Churchmembership and he may make over visible Churchmembership to the children of them that love him and yet not to them in infancy So that the conclusion may bee granted as it stands without any impeachment to my tenet But if it be meant of visible Churchmembership of infant children the minor is to be denied And to the proof 1. I except that this promise was proper to the Jews made to back the legal Covenant and though it be a promise annexed to the observing a moral precept yet as in the fifth Commandment termed the first Commandment with promise Ephes. 6.2 So in this the promise hath special reference to their prosperous and safe estate in Canaan in which they were continued while they kept themselves from idolatry and on the other side expelled captivated enslaved when they served idols unto the third and fourth generation upon which considering the time of making this promise the usual tenour of promises in the Books of Moses as Deut. 7.9 12. to the same purpose the place where this promise is put the event which doth best expound it and that no where under the Gospel promises are made to believers children but onely to believers themselves of Evangelical mercy yea the Apostle concludes that notwithstanding the promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 and to Israel yet God hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom he will hee hardens Rom. 9.18 I do determine without fear of Mr. Bs. censure that this promise was suited to the Jews peculiarly 2. I hence infer that if this mercy be meant of Churchmembership yet it might bee yea was proper to the Jews children 3. The mercy here cannot be proved to be visible Churchmembership 4. That it is onely to those mens children who love him and keep his Commandments which is an invisible thing and so whose infants are visible Churchmembers by this promise cannot bee known 5. That this promise is made good though it be not performed to all those that love him nor to all their children nor to any in infancy 6. That this promise is not true without the exception of election and the expounding of it as conditional and not absolute sith it must then follow that God exempts none yet from mercy there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day So that till Mr. B. have proved the contrary to these which he can never do his proof from hence will appear to be of no force But let us examine what he saith Let mee try therefore whether this 2d Commandment in the words cited do not prove the minor to which end I argue thus If God have assured his mercy by promise to the children of all them that love and obey him then he would have them be taken for members of his Church But hee hath here assured his mercy by promise to the children of them that love and obey him therfore he would have them bee taken for Churchmembers The minor is plain in the text The consequence of the major I prove thus viz. that all those must be taken for Churchmembers on whom God hath thus stated or assured his mercy by promise the word mercy I shall explain anon If God have estated and assured his mercy by promise to no other society of men in the world but the Church then all those are members of the Church on whom his mercy is thus estated and assured But God hath estated and assured his mercy on no other society Therefore c. Here let me a little explain my meaning Sometime when God promiseth mercy it is first to some particular person or family Sometime to a whole species or sort of persons 2. Sometimes it is some particular named mercy and sometime in the general naming no sort or individual mercy 3. Sometimes it is upon a special ground proper to some one person or to few and somtimes it is upon a common ground 4. When the mercy is specified it is sometime meerly corporal and sometime spiritual 5. And of spiritual mercies sometime it is common to others besides the saved and sometime special and proper to the saved 6. Sometime it is mercy limiâ—ed to a short or certain time and sometime estated
before onely to priviledges of ordinances is not true Nor is it true that in my speech recited by him pag. 312. is taken for granted 1. that the whole visible body of Christian nations are truly ingraffed into the Church invisible iâ— by whole body be meant all the parts oâ— every part 2. Nor is it true that it is taken for granted by me that in after ages the same body though not the same persons may be cast off and yet no particular person rejected without this explication that no particular person who was an elect person or true believer is rejected But against this 2d imagined grant of mine Mr. Bl. thus argues The 2d must be examined this Church thus cut off either continues in the invisible body as before or else is degenerate by the death of those numerical persons that made up a body invisible and succession of others that are no more then vâ—sible members If it continue in the invisible body till the time of breaking off then Mr. T. is not holpen with his distinction of a consistent and a fluent being nor with hiâ— similitude of Euphrates for so a Church invisible is still broken off and rejected and falling away is maintained If it be degenerate then 1. they fall off themselves and are not broken off by God their own sin thâ—n should be noted nor Gods act as their punishment But their breaking off or rejection is the act of God laying waste his Vineyard Isa 5. taking away his Kingdome Matth. 21 43. removing the Candlestick Ephes. 2.5 it should be Revel 2.5 All noting the act of God punishing upon the peoples act of sinning which is of the Church not invisible but visible 2. For the similitude of Cyrus his turning of Euphrates that he turned the same River that God created this will not serve Mr. T. his purpose for Euphrates continues a River of the same kind and nature as it was at the first creation and the Church in his expression is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professors The Church had changed her own channel 3. Mr. T. indeed grants the question for he confesses that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible Sect. 4. M Bl. adds these words That wild assertion pag. 19. That the branches were broken off from election and true faith and the invisible Church in which they were with this limitation understanding it not of the same singular persons but the same people or nation is a thread that runs through almost the whole and enough I suppose is spoken to it And when he shall shew me an invisible nation of which he speaks from which there may be a breach I will either yeeld â—p all or he shall hear more Till then I shall look on his words as such a unworthy the pen of such a Writer an invisible nation it must be a visible nation cannot be cut off from the Church invisible Answ. Speak out man let me know the worst you can say I expect no favour from you having found neither charity nor equity in your writings against mee The assertion is such as will endure your strongest battery what you say here is merre wrangling like a Sophister perverting my words when they are truly repeated though thy are very plain The Argument is quite from the matter The Conclusion is that the Church cut off is not the invisâ—ble Church but visible which is not contradictory to my assertiâ—n who never asserted that the Church cut ofâ— was the invisible Church but often asserted the contrary alwayes making the Olive tree the invisible Church to abide the same though some branches were broken off others were ingraffed as in the first part of this Review Section 9. page 83. with this explication page 66. yet not as a rock that abides the same but as a river which is in flux and I often deny in express termes as pag. 22 74. that my meaning was that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church but this I say that the Nation of the Jews of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisible Church as branches in the Olive in a continued succession in the time of the Apostle that people to wit the most part of that nation were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive tree in which that people in the individual persons of a former age did stand Which thing having been so often and so plainly expressed by mee in that book which Mr. Bl. takes on him to answer it is an extremely shamefull abuse hee offers mee in going about to refute that as my assertion which is disclaimed by mee Now this being premised and the term this Church as it should be being changed into this people or nation that is a great or the greatest part of them I answer they are broken off from the invisible Church in that the numerical persons that made up the invisible Church in a former age being dead the successors degenerated from their faith and were neither visible professors nor invisible believers in Christ which not believing was their own act from their own will yet consequent on Gods act of repâ—obation and the breaking off to wit the deprivation of them from the membership and priviledges of his invisible Church was Gods act of punitive justice for their unbelieving And thus the similitude of Cyrus his turning Euphrates serves my purpose to shew how I am free from holding Arminian Apostasie the same people like that river beeing turned from their old channel though not the same persons not as Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth mee that in my expression the Church is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professours or that the Church had changed her own channel Nor do I grant the question or confess that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible but what I say is of the Jewish people who had not so much as a visible interest when God brake them off or they fell off and the Gentiles are ingraffed into the invisible Church in their stead Nor need I shew an invisible nation broken off it being neither true that I spake of an invisible nation nor that a visible nation cannot bee cut off from the Church invisible but these are Mr. Bls. dotages for want of heeding mine and his own words as I conceive through hast to insert some thing against me in that book ere it was printed Which is so far from being enough to answer me that aâ— Solomon said of him that answered a matter afore he heard it so it
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
and re-ingraffed for the Fathers sake which is there made the peculiar priviledge of Israel after the flesh But there is not a word in the Apostle Rom. 11. that shews that priviledge to have been enjoyed by believing Gentiles since their being graffed into the same root and Olive tree from whence the Jews were broken off Nor is it true For God hath removed his Candlestick from many places where there were famous Churches aâ—d from many kindreds families and people where there were formerly godly company and society so that now the progeny are become profane and Apostates and the Churches replenished with plants out of families in which a little while since Popery profaneness and viciousness did abound Noâ— do 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.38 make any thing for Mr. Cs. purpose as shall appear in the sequel Nor doth the application of Circumcisâ—on to the child or Abrahams title of Father of all them that believe prove the Covenant with Abraham in Mr. Cs. sense Nor is it true the application of Circumcision to the child is a necessary and essential part of that Ordinance For that is not an essential part of an Ordinaâ—ce without which it might be But the Ordinance of Circumcision might be and perhaps was at first without application to a child if thereby be meant an infant however if none but parents were circumcised as when the Circumcision was Josh. 5. it had been the Ordinance of Circumcision nevertheless when onely one proselyte aâ— age was circumcised it was the Ordinance Ergo. As for what Mr. C. answers to the objection from experience it is indeed a pulling down of what he had spent so much time to build up For if Gods blessing do not take effect through mens sin or defect of using means then the promise is not to families and kindreds in that absolute manner Mr. C. before described it then the promise is to the quality and diligence of the persons not to the relation then is the promise as well to any other so qualified and diligent as to the parent then is it false which he said before pag. 38. that the success was not from example and other means but a special word of blessing the promise to Abraham Finally if that be true which he hath pag. 35. which is false printed G 2. that although Gods promise be to carry his election so as to cast elect children upon elect parents yet he reserveth to himself and also useth in this a liberty namely ever and anon to be still breaking of 〈…〉 graffing in others into this holy root then what he said before p. 7. F 3. that God hath thus far limited himself and discovered his mind and purpose that he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents is false For what God reserveth to himself and useth a liberty in he hath not limited himself so far and if he ever and anon useth this liberty to be still breaking ofâ— some and graffing in others then he doth not ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents for what is otherwise ever and anon and still is not so ordinarily much less still in being to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds end as he said pag. 33. G. So that Mr. Cs. discourse from his own words is found hitherto to contain mistakes uncertainty and in the main inconsistency with it self Let 's view whether in the rest there be any thing worthy of a Lord Mayors imprimatur A third thing Mr. C. observes as contained in the Lords promise unto Abraham is That by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 So Gen. 17.2 5. That this is part of the Gospel and contained in the promise made to him and us is proved from Heb. 6.14 A further proof we have Gen. 15.5 alledged Rom. 4.3 18 22. as belonging to believing Gentiles the increase of whose number by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed was intended in that promise and as part of that Gospel which God preached unto Abraham There 's a promise that the Kingdome of Christ shall fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. To this purpose is that of our Saviour Matth. 13.31 32 33. Now the Lords making believers blessings and thereby multiplying Abrahams seed is that which makes his Kingdome thus to be like leaven whereby the whole world at last will be seasoned with the knowledge and love of Christ. Therefore this multiplying of believers so as to fill the world is made by the Apostle Rom. 4.13 to be part of Abrahams promise then mark what follows v. 16 17 18. This promise was made sure to all believers as well Gentiles as Jews Answ. 1. Why Mr. C. makes that the 3d. thing in Gods promise Gen. 22.17 18. which is the 2d and puts that as the 2d thing which is after the rest v. 18. and so the 4th I see no reason but onely that he foresaw that otherwise there had been no colour for this which he here infers that by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 But the right order of the promises shews this conceit to be only Mr. Cs. fancy For in that the promise v. 18. is put last it is shewed thereby that it is a distinct promise and that it doth not express the manner how God would multiply Abrahams seed as Mr. C. conceives 2. It is true Gen. 15.5 is a Gospel promise to believing Gentiles Rom. 4.18 but not in Mr. Cs. sense that the increase of the number of believing Gentiles should be by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed in that God would cast ordinarily elect children oâ— elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together But in this sense that Abraham should have an innumerable company of children or his seed among the Gentiles by faith who should be faithfullâ—â—raham â—â—raham Gal. 3.9 in their own persons but no mention is there of their being a blessing to others 3. That the Church of Christ should fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. that the Kingdome of Heaven as a grain of mustard seed or leaven Matth. 13.31 32 33. shall fill or season the world is granted but that it is meant in those places to be done in Mr. Cs. way is denied I do conceive it to have been meant of the Apostles preaching as me thinks Christs words Matth. 24.14 do import 4 That the promise of being heir of the world was to Abraham and his seed believing Gentiles is granted but that his or their being heir of the world did import any such blessing as Mr. C. imagines as if God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents or that any such thing is intimated by the Apostle v. 16 17 18. is denied Nor do I yet find any interpreter afore Mr. C. who hath so expounded the promâ—se In the opening of the 4th
not be vanquished till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire But the Emperour objected to the Protestants that their Preachers were a great occasion of the Rustical war wherein an hundred thousand were slain But whether it were so or not so what ever Mr. Crs. protestations be the writing this Epistle with some other passages at the time and to the persons to whom it was directed shew what we are to expect from him and such as he is if ever they have power over us But of these things onely by the way SECT LXXXVIII Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism AFter his own Epistle and the Epistle of I. T. P. and the reprinting of the conference between me and Mr. Vaughan and the dispute between me and himself Mr. Cr. leaving out the former Epistle of I. T. P. begins with a descant on the title of my reply which he vainly makes to imply a suit against the universal Church though it be onely an action against innovators who have left the plain way of Christ and his Apostles and as they have done in many other things brought in infant Baptism to the great corruption of the Church of God And for Mr. Halls inditement it is such as is fit for boys onely to make sport with and were Mr. Hall or Mr. Cr. of such serious and grave spirits as they should be they would have buried it in silence or been humbled for handling things of God so lightly such writings being fitter for light wits in the University then for Preachers and Pastors over Churches of Christ. My calling Mr. Baxters book a cheat and mock titled book is proved here to be right and that Mr. Ms. is no impregnable Defence is here shewed The rest of Mr. Crs. light Poetry in sect 1. c. par 1. I let pass as the scum of his wit and onely take notice that he terms from Stow Sir John Oldcastle a traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles field whom Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs in the time of Henry the 5th hath against Alan Cope vindicated and by sundry arguments particularly by the manner of his death mentioned by Mr. Cr. made it probable that he died a Martyr oppressed by popish Prelates Whose case is a good document how little credence is to be given to the censures of men when the relations of them are made by their prevailing adversaries What I think of laying on hands may be seen part 2 of this Review sect 23. Dr. Featly was a man with whom I had sundry times conference when he was in his greatest esteem but never found him such as I durst not look in the face when living and sure his book of Baptism is besideâ— what Denn hath done shewed here and elsewhere not to be unanswerable With what spirit Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists and my self have written on this subject must be left to the cognizance of our Judge If Austins saying l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 23. That what the universal Church holds nor was instituted in Councels but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority were meant as Mr. Cr. sect 5. p. 67. expounds it including the Apostles I should yeeld it But 1. I do not conceive that to be Austins meaning for 1. then the speech would be an inept tautology to say that what the whole Church including the Apostles holds is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority it were as if he had said what the Apostles held the Apostles held 2. The very speech shews that Austin meant it of the universal Church of his time the word tenet being in the present tense and the Councels meant being such as were since the Apostles and that he counted that to be instituted in no Councels but to have been always held of which he could not shew any beginning or any interruption 3. Elsewhere his speeches shew this was his mind as Epist. 118. ad Joann Illa quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab iâ—sis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ— saluberrima autoritas commendata atque statuta retineri and he instanceth in the anniversary solemnities of Good Friday Easter day Holy Thursday and Whitsunday and adds and if any other thing hath occurred which is kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads it self And accordingly he makes the necessity of the Communion to eternal life as of Baptism to the Kingdome to be from Apostolical tradition tom 7. de pecc mer. remis l. 1. c. 24. Mr. Crs. conceit is not right as if the words And if any man seek for Divine authority in this thing did intimate that his following rule was meant of what was held in the Apostles time for in them he means that which he after fetcheth from Circumcision out of Scripture besides that which the whole Church holds not instituted in Councels yet still held In this sense it is urged by Canus l. 3. loc Theol. c. 4. as a rule to know genuine unwritten traditions Apostolical from spurious and rejected by Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 8. c. 14. § 13. as impossible sith what hath been in all ages and Churches from the Apostles cannot be known and it is urged by Bellarm. de bonis oper in part l. 2. c. â—4 for Lent fast and refuted by Chamier paustr. cath tom â— l. 19 c. 7. § 36. 2. This rule cannot stand the Epistler in any stead for proving infant Baptism without the Apostles writings 1. because there is no way without them to know what was universally held there being no man able to know what the Church holds in all places in his own time much less what in former ages was held and many things have been taken even by Austin as universally observed which were not and many Councels held which are unknown and many corruptions crept very early into the Church whose original cannot be sâ—t down determinately of which Ushers general answer to the Jesuites challenge gives reasons 2. Infant Baptism cannot bee proved to have been universally observed but as now it is taught and used hath been opposed by some of the Ancients and is now rejected by Protestant Divines as it was by the Ancients taught and used Nor is Austins testiâ—ony Seâ—m 10. de verb. Apostoli not Serm. 15. that the Church always had and held Infant Baptism valid for Mr. Crs. purpose 1. because the term hoc this may bee rather referred to tâ—e doctrine of infants being born with original sin rather then the practise of their baptism and to this senâ—e both tâ—e scope words precedent consequenâ— and the terms had held perceives from the
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
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