these false suppositions that God had promised to be God to those whom he commanded to be circumcised and that the promise of being their God was the formal reason of their being circumcised that when God promised to be a God of to Gentiles he meant it of external adoption and priviledges The consequence he would prove by four Argument 2. The promise of propriety in God was not a specialty therefore the Infaints of Christians being certainly no less in the promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime they are rightly judged to be in it as they were Where the conclusion is altered which was to be proved therefore if the Infants of the Jews were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God then the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise and instead thereof that which should have been the antecedent the Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews Infants aforetime is made the chief part of the conclusion and in stead of the right antecedent this ambiguous antecedent is put that promise of proriety in God was not a specialty which he says he would prove by seven arguments but sets not down which branch of the promise was not a specialty whether that I will be thy God or that I will be the God of thy seed nor in what sense it was not a specialty nor doth his speech that it was not a specialty appear equipollent to that he should have proved The Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews dnfants aforetime but he dictates so ambiguously and indistinctly that more labour will be necessary to understand him then to refute him He tells us the promise of propriety in God was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors and Abrahams natural seed where he supposeth that the promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed was true of meer visible professors and Abrahams natural seed which is most false and contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. Luk. 20.36 37 38. He brings the words Exod. 12.48 49 the stranger was as our home-born and there was one law for both which are spoken meerly of allowance for them to eat the Passeover with them to prove a like propriety of the Infants of visible professors of the Gentiles in the promise of propriety in God Gen. 17.7 He brings Gal. 4.28 which was spoken onely of true Believers born after the Spirit to prove visible professors and their Infants to be judged in the promise of propriety in God He saith Isaac was in the promise as an Infant of Believing parent whereas Paul saith no for then Ishmael and Esau had been in the promise but by special calling or election Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. He applies those texts Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8 9. Gen. 17 5 7. to prove a promise to every Gentile visible professour of faith and their Infants which are onely verified in the sense the Apostle useth them of true Believers as Abraham was who are justified as he was He allegeth that which the Apostle Rom. 11.28 saith The children are beloved for the Fathers as it were meant of Infants of every Gentile visible professor which is spoken onely of the elect Israelites and the ancient Patriarchs Abraham c. That which is said Psal. 138. 1 3. of children of him that fears God sitting round about his table like Olive plants to prove visible professors and their partaking in the promise of propriety in God He saith The former part of that promise I will be a God to thee Gen. 17.7 is undeniably common to all Believers which in truth is undeniably proper t Abraham not simply as a Believer but either as a natural Father or Father o Believers according to the spiritual part of the promise He saith Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former they are called as they were an holy Nation a peculiar people a royal priesthood 1 Pet. 2 9. Tit 2.14 And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine worship and discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is to be accounted to the Lord in every age Psal. 22.30 even Egypt and Assyria with Israel Isa. 19.21 and many call Abraham Father who obtained the Fatherhood of many Nations Gen. 17.5 and may be accounted a national Church no less hen that Nation was whereby those speeches 1 Pet. 2.9 T it 2.14 Gen. 17.5 as expounded Rom. 4.17 which are meant onely of the elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a national Church like the Jews consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity or persecutors of godliness profanely despising the word and hating the godly He applies that Mat. 18.10 little ones who are said vers 6. to believe in Christ and the offending of whom hath so great a penalty to little one in age He applies Jer. 30.20 which is spoken of the Jews upon their return from captivity as appears vers 18.21 concerning their prosperity in Canaan to the restitution of their Infants to an initial seal at the calling of them to the Christian faith whereas if it were so meant the Prophet should foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Christ should be as a foretime that is should be circumcised as they were before the Prophets time not baâ—tized More things there are liable to exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text Act. 2.39 Rom. 11.17 1. Cor. 7.14 is sufficiently discussed in â—y Ample dsquisition of those texts That which concerns the reasons that God promiseth mercy to thousands and such like arguments being urged more fully by Master B. I shall answer when I meet with them in his book His arguments pag. 18. to prove his Consequence The Infants of Chaistians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are to be baptized are insufficient The first is from circumcision of Infants to which hath been often answered That was done by vertue of the Command not by vertue of the promise and therefore without the like Command the like promise if it were granted would not prove the like practice What is said of John Baptists and the Apostles not denying baptism to any whom they judged to be in the promise seems to intimate that they baptized men because they judged them to be in the promise But there is not a word thereof in any of the Evangelists but their comming to John confessing their sins glorifying God in embracing his Counsel professing faith as the reason of their admission to baptism To his second reason Being in the promise is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. Therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized I answer 1. He says not truely that being
Wherin sundry inconsistences seem to be 1. that sealing the promise by an initial seal should be the substance of circumcision yet circumcision a distinct thing from it Is the substance of a being a distinct thing from it the substance of a man a distinct thing from a man 2. that Sealing the promise should be the substance of circumcision and yet circumcision onely a ceremony for that time Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the substance of it 3. that circumcision doth cease yet not that sealing the promise by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcision Let him that can read these riddles I am no such Ocdipus as to unfold them But let Mr. Church use what gibberish he please I know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcision mentioned in the old Testament nor any sealing then commanded but it and if it cease then all the ruls about it cease to bind and so are no rule to us now But saith he pag. 41. The sealing of promise is not ceased far seals are added in dispensation to the covenant To which I reply A thing is said to cease either of right or of fact which was of right to be or had being before but not now There was no sealing by an initial seal aforetime that had being of right or of fact aforetime but circumcision which Mr. Church saith was the initial seal aforetime therefore circumcision ceasing sealing with the initial seal aforetime ceased there being no other foretime But saith Mr. Church it is not ceased for seals are added in this dispensation to the covenant he means doubtless baptism and the Lords Supper and by seals other seals and so his reason is sealing of the promise by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not ceased because other seals are added which is as if one should say the night is not past because the sun is risen the reason is good to the contrary there are other seals added therefore the sealing with the initial seal aforetime is ceased But saith he it did not of right cease with the Jewish church state For it was not peculiar too that church as a national church Answer If circumcision were not perticular to the Jewish Church-state I know nothing peculiar to it And if it were not peculiar to that church as a national church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcision and other people the uncircumcision Rom. 3.30 And for that which is alledged that promise was scaled to Infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation I conceive neither is true For circumcision was not till Abrahams nation were a Church For he had before that time taught them the way of the Lord Gen. 18. â—9 and they worshipped the true God as appears by the many altars he built to Jehovah And though Abrahams house was but a small nation yet it was a nation And though Infants of strangers were circumcised yet it was not without in corporation into that nation so that they were of that nation if not by birth yet as proselytes added thereto nevertheless if it had been before the existence of the national church of the Jews it might cease with that church-state as the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was before Abrahams dayes as appears by Gen. 17.2 and yet that distinction ceased with the Jewish Church state As for his second reason it is of no force For when he saith Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholike Church he means it I conceive of baptism else Acts 8.36 37. 10.47 are cited to no purpose But there is no colour of consequence in Mr. Churches reason thus framed Baptism joined men to the Universal Church therefore Circumcision was not peculiar to the Jewish Church-state or that it ceased not with the Jewish Church-state As for his other assertion That one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholick Church cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a Member of a particular Church it being of no weight to the present Argument I shall not so fitly meddle with it till I come to answer the 20. ch of Mr. Bs. first part of Plain Scripture proof c. As for his third Argument it proves not the Consequence For though faith and repentance be required of some afore circumcision yet it was not required of infants afore circumcision But afore baptism it is required of all Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.36 37 38. To the fourth I say though infants now are capable of the promise as the Jews infants were and that they could bear baptism as well as the Jews infants could circumcision yet without a like command which cannot be found they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcised As for the fifth Argument it is false That baptism is as appliable to infants as circumcision was for there is not the like command without which though it were that no more action were required in the subject to be baptized then in the subject to be circumcised which is false as appears from Matt. 28.19 Mark 16 16. Acts 2.38 Acts 8.36 37 38. and though it were that the parities were more between them then they are yet they make no rule for baptism without a command or institution But it is false which he saith that baptism is the same Sacrament with Circumcision And as for the twelve parities brought by Mr. Church some are doubtful as the first that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace in some sense with some limitations it may be true but in other even in that sense it is commonly taken it is not true to wit that the essence of them consists therein and that they are so to all rightly circumcised or baptized The second is likewise ambiguous in some sense true in some false Those that might not be rightly judged to be in the promise might be circumcised however it be concerning baptism And those that may be rightly accounted to be of the Church meaning the invisible yet are not therefore to be baptized The third likewise is doubtful by reason of the different waies of being accounted to the Church and the doubt whether a person be to be accounted of the Church afore baptism or after The Words Acts 2.41.47 seem to prove that they are added to the Church after baptism Neither is the fourth or fifth certain For women ordinarily entred into the Church aforetime without circumcision and did eat the Passeover The eighth is not true of every circumcised persons circumcision nor of every baptized persons baptism that it is an external seat of the righteousness of faith In the tenth something is untrue For in the new Dispensation as the phrase is are not both temporal and spiritual promises sealed as
seal would be limitted to invisible members But this is not true for then the being of the promise would be limitted to them not baptism It is false which Master Blake supposeth that baptism is limitted to them to whom the promise is and that the being of the promise to a person intitles to his baptism He saith it is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole â—â—tion of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-born in the family To which I reply The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-state by which they were joyned in one national society under an high Priest and other Priest offering sacrifice at the Temple whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts and to observe the Levitical rites It is a dotage with a witness to conceive that Peter meant Acts 2.39 that the promise was to them or those afar off whom God should call to this Church-state It is certain that the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles by the Gospel was to remove them out of that society and Church-state as appears by v. 40. nor did the Apostles ever associate the Christians to the Jews as Proselytes to them nor did they ever draw them into any such Church-state as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation City or Family comprehending Infants into the Christian church but onely so many as believed as v. 41.42 c. shew yea to call them to such a Church-state as the Jewes had had been to call them not to baptism but to circumcision and the observation of Moses Law The call of God Acts 2.39 is no other then what is mentioned in the new Testament to be Saints to his Kingdom and Glory to the fellowship of his sonne by his word and spirit or one of them at least yea the promise being meant of Christ which Master Blake doth not deny as will appear in that which followes it can be expounded onely of those that are effectually called sith to them onely Christ belongs on the other side to understand it of a call unto such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is to limit the promise to Jewish proselytes or to national Christian Churches which is a wild conceit unfit for a serious and sober Divine But Master Blake goeth on from whence this Argument may be drawn those to whom the Covenant of Promise appertains have a right to baptism But the Covenant of Promise appertains to men in a Church-state and Condition and to their Children The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites The Minor proposition is now onely to be considered that the Covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and Condition is in that latitude as to comprize their Children For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear To you is the promise made and to your Children on which Calvin rightly comments Peter observes saith he a due order when he assignes the first place of honour to the Jewes that it takes in Children it depends on the word of promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed where God joynes children with their parents in the priviledge of Adoption where Adoption is taken in the Apostles sense Rom. 9.5 to the inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members as he after explains himself Ans. The Major is ambiguous and in some sense it is true and in some sense false It is true in this sense Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by their beleiving and Covenanting to be Christs Disciples appertains have a right to baptism But in this sense in which Master Blake seems to understand it for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by Gods Acts of Promise whether of saving Grace or Church-privileges appertains without their personal believing or covenanting have a right to baptism it is false Nor is the Contradictory thereto opposit to any thing the Apostle saith who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptism but doth not from the promise without each persons repentance ascribe a right to baptism to any parent or child the promise is not urged by him to declare a right to baptism of it self without repentance but to encourage to repentance and baptism into the Name of Christ as their duty The Minor also is ambiguous it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promise whether the Covenant whereby the persons promise to God or God to them and if of this latter whether the Covenant wherein God promiseth to them be of saving-graces or of Church-priviledges if he mean it of the former understand it universally it is manifestly false contrary to Scripture and experience whether the Church-state be in respect of the visible or invisible Church there is no such promise of God that if the Parent be in a Church-state or condition so as to be elect or true beleiver much less if he be onely in the visible Church that his child as his child shall be in the Covenant of saving grace have Christ his Spirit remission of sins and life everlasting by him Nor is it true of the promise of Church-priviledges that God will take the child of him who is in a Church-state and condition for a visible Church-member capable of the initial seat because he is his child without the childs personal faith and repentance Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promise now under the Gospel of such outward Church-priviledges but take it to be a faction of Paedobaptists nor is there in the Apostles words any thing to prove the Minor For neither doth the text say the promise is that Gen. 17.7 nor that it is made but onely is nor doth say it is to you as in a Church-state and condition and to your children as the children of men in a Church-state and condition And for Calvins words neither are they plain for Mr. Bls. purpose nor if they were should I take them for an oracle but should expect better proof then his or Master Bls. sayings As for the Adoption Rom. 9.5 it is clear from the text and confessed by Master Rutherford Due right of Presbytery ch 4. Sect. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the Jewes as was the giving of the Law the descent of Christ c. and therefore it is untruly suggested by Master Blake to be an inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-members or that the Apostle doth after so explain himself and Master Blake continues his want of dictating without proofe He next takes on him to answer objections One is that the children are the same with sons and daughters mentioned v. 17. from Joel 2.28 and consequently the promise is of the spirit of prophecy and appertaining to none but those of age and capacity for prophecy To which he answers 1. That the promise cannot be that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost in that visibie way
Mr. B. You must distinguish between their Church consideâ—ed in it self and considered comparatively as to otheâ—s The Jews were a peculiar people and Church of God no other had the like priviledges Now if they had bâ—lieved they should have kept all their priviledges absolutely considered except it be a losing them to change them for greater But comparatively coâ—sidered they should not have kept some relative priviledges For they should no longer have been a singular peculiar people seeing others should have enjoyed as great priviledges as they yet this would have been without any loss of theirs much more without wholly unchurching them or their children When a man hath but one son he hath the priviledge of being his Fathers onely Son But when his father hath many more he hath lost that priviledge and yet is not therefore turned out of the Family nay the adding of more Brethren in our case is an increase of the happiness of each pâ—rticular for this is the very case of the Jews The adding of the Gentiles would have made the Jews no more to be so peculiar as to be singular in their priviledges and yet they should have enjoyed never tâ—e less Therefore mark iâ— the Scripture speaking of taking in the Gentiles it expâ—esseth it as by taking down the partition wall and making of both one Church but it speaks not of unchurching the Jews first and their children or bereaving them of their priviledges And when in his Vision Peter was taught the Doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church Acts 10. it was not by making the Jews unclean but by clensing the Gentiles to be clean as the Jews So that if the Jews would have believed they should have lost only their comparative priviledges consisting in the singularity of their enjoyments which is no loss to them to have the Gentiles enjoy them as well as they but their priviledges in themselves considered would not have been diminished but some lesser turned into greater And therefore certainly God would never have turned their children all out of the visible Church Answ. The distinction is of the â—ewish Church considered in it self and comparatively as to others but the application is as if Mr. B. had forgotten his distinction of their privileâ—ges considered absolutely and comparaâ—ive and tâ—en he saith if the Jews had believed they had lost onely their comparative priviledges not in themselves considered Concerning which conceits it had been requisit if he would be understood that either he should have given a catalogue of each sort of priviledges or such a description of them as whereby we miâ—ht understand which are of the one sort which of the other My opinion is that had the Jews believed that is every individuâ—l Jew of age or the greatest part â—ad received the Gospel they should have enjoyed with the Gentiles all the priviledges of the Covenant of saving graces the Jewish people should have enjoyed their possessions in their own Land which me thinks Christs words import Luke 19 4â— 42 43. But deny that they should have this as a priviledge to them that their children should be accounted visible members of the Christian Churches For Gods purpose was to erect a Church universal uniformly by preaching the Gospel and not by birth and it appeared plainly by the practise of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles who never took in any believing parenâ—s infant to Baptism and the Christian Church noâ— admitted any Jew without his own personal profession of Faith in Christ. Nor is the contrary proved by Ephes. 2.14 but that very thing I assert For the taking down the partition wall was by taking away the Jewish rites and Church-state that none could be joynâ—d to them without conformiâ—y to the Law now one Church is made of both by faith through the Gospel Ephes. 3.6 And in like maâ—ner when Peter took in Cornelius Acts 10. he declared Gods mind in his Vision v. 35. that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him but he doth not say that every one of their infant children are taken into the Church nor did he any act whereby to shew that to be Gods mind Nor are Mr. Bs. observations of any force for they suppose that if the Church state of the Jews were altered Paul would have spoken of their unchurching Ephes. 2.14 and Actsâ— of their making unclean which implies as if there were no other way then these to alter their Church-state and to leave the infants out of the visible Church Christian whereas I have often shewed the contrary thâ—t it was done by taking in onely to bapâ—ism bâ—lievers releasing from the burden of Circumcision and the Law which might have been though all the Jews of age had been believers 4. Saith Mr. B. So when we call the Jews a National Church and when Mr. T. saith God toâ—k the whole Nation to be his Church it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and restriction to that Nation onely as if God had not called any other whole Nation and so it may be true that the Jews onely were a National Church though yet it is doubtfull as what is said of Melchizedek before sheweth and also in regard of their National and Church unity which yet is the excellency and strength of all other Churches or else by a National Church may be meant as if all were Church members that were of that Nation and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation And thus I perceive it is by many understood But this is notoriously false Answ. It is in this last sâ—nse I mean it and I think it manifestly true with these explications 1. That they were of that Nation by birth property or proselytism 2. That they were Church-members while they continued to be of that Nation any of these wayâ— 3. That they were Church-members with some disâ—uiparance or inequality of priviledges Let 's view Mr. Bs. proofs For it was then as well as now the Covenant of God wherein he took them for his peculiar people and they took him for their onely God the parents engagiag for themselves and their children which made them members of the Church For 1. No aged person no not servants much less ordinary proselites were members except they entred the Covenant though they are commanded to circumcise all in their house yet it is supposed that by their interest and authority they caused them first to enter the Covenant Therefore they were to circumcise the servants bought with money as being absolutely their own whom they had most interest in but not the hired servants whom they had no such authority over except they became proselytes voluntarily Answ. A mutual Covenant such as that at Mount Sinai I deny not to have made the people of Israel the Church of God and consequently the infants then born visible Church-members But I dâ—ny that it was then by reason of the
entring them into the Jewish Church by Baptism Circumcision and an Offering and with them wives and children and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law and acting according to rules of their own In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond Now though they were joyned to the Jewish Church one after-another and the infants of the Jews as they were born yet the jewish-Jewish-Church whether at the first erection or after estabâ—ishing were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing I was to demonstrate Mr. B. goes on thus But yet one other argument Mr. T. haâ—h to prove the Church constitution altered and consequently infants now cast out or their church membership repealed And that is this They were to go up three times a year to the Temple they had their Sanedrim and High Priest Now he appealeth to all whether these be not altered And therefore the Church constitution must needs be altered and so infants put out Answ. My argument is this If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered then infants church membership is altered But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logick Where there is the same reason of things there is to be the same judgement De paribus idem est judicium The minor is proved thus The High Priest Sanhedrim repair to their Feasts had the same reason with infants visible church membership But they are altered Ergo. The major is proved thus Infants church membership was no where but in the Jewish Church we read of it no where else nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation which God had made his Church they were visible church members upon no profession of their own nor from any general determination of God Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any countrey whatsoever there being no such Law but meerly from hence because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come and so a National Church till then And for the same reason he would have one High Priest Temple repair thither at solemn Feasts a Sanhedrim their genealogies kept their possessions by lot c. But all these are altered now the Church is not National no one High Priest Temple Sanhedrim c. therefore neither infants visible Church-membership which had the same reason and no other What saith Mr. B. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better arguments are any of these essential to their Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between Priesthood Temple Sanhedrim c. as that the Church must needs fall when they fall may it not be a Church without these Answ. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better answers Is infants church-membership essential to Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between the Church and their membership as that the Church must needs fall when they fall mayâ—it not be a Church without these If the Temple c. might be altered and and were because noâ— essential to the Church infants Church-membership did cease too which was no more essential then those and which hath been proved to have the same reason with these to wit Gods making his Church National out of which the Messiah was to come Hitherto nothing is indeed answered and what is said is retorted The rest is according to Mr. Bs. vein of frivolous putting impertinent questions to me I would intreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him considerately to answer me to these 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple or Sanhedrim or High Priest or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses Ans. I think not there was no time they were a Church but they had a Priest an Altar Sacrifices distinction of clean and unclean beasts c. Were they not a Church in Aegypt and in the families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob Ans. They were 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church or constitution of the Church Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church or overthrow the old why should the taking of them away overthrow it Ans. Who saith it doth 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants why not after Moses time Ans. Who denies it Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple or Sanedrim or High Priest c. Why may they not be so when these are down why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time yet they were erected upon the same foundation the Jewish National Church as the walls fall with the roof though they rise not together because they rest on the same foundation 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down then men are cast out and women too as well as children Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered and I grant it that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church are left out I will not say cast out for they were never in of the Christian visible Church as well as children If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew I answer What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members of the Church and then set it up anew Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament but that if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church Christ repealed it when neither John Baptist nor Christ nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism without his personal faith and repentance Mr. B. saith I will wast no more time in confuting such slender arguments but shall willingly leave it to the judgement of any understanding unbyassed man whether Mr. T. have well proved that God repealed his Ordinance and revoked his mercifull gift that some infants shall be Church members Answ. It is my burthen that I must waste more time in refuting such empty scriblings as these
children were broken off from the invisible Church in which the elect Jewes and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion taking it as he doth for ingraffing into the visible Church For saith he there is this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jewes as natural branches and the engraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jewes good and bad were called branches now onely believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their children are ingraffed into that root Which is enough to shew that the Gentiles were not ingraffed into the root or tree as the Jews by natural descent but by calling of the Gospel and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not ingraffed but so many as are called The ingraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream and is overthrown by this that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling not national but Congregational by voluntary Covenant nor can the Churches called Independent hold this which Master Sidenham and Master Cobbet and others of their way hold that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is sutable to that of the Jewes as being in their stead but they must hold a national Church whiâ—h quite overturns the frame of their Churches and the Reformation they contend for To his second argument the some that were broken off might be parents and children or parents and not children or children and not parents and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin or their parents according to Gods good pleasure onely But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter in the first part of this Review sect 4 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted understood of ingraffing into the Church invisible not into the visible To the fourth that the fatness of the Olive should note priviledges and outward advantages such as this that the child should be visible Churchmember with the father in the Christian Church or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal vertue to convey such Church priviledge or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17 is a meer fancy nor is there any thing Ephes. 3.6 or any where else in Scripture for it To the objection That now believers are onely branches Abraham onely the roote and therefore the argument holds not If the parent be holy so is the childe being understood of other then Abraham and his seed hee answers That yet the branches well ingraffed become natural branches and receive as much from the roote as those which grew naturally on it so Gentile believers must have the same priviledge and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may bee termed immediate rootes But hee doth not shew that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughes of trees rootes to lesser neither dare hee say the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root Rom. 11.16 and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant because the Apostle saith if the roote bee holy so are the branches because Abraham onely is the roote there As for Mr. Bls. saying I value it not it being without Scripture It 's sufficient for present to shew the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofes I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Churchmembership and Baptism was brought to this issue Whether the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 into the Olive tree be meant of joyning a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon so that none are ingraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments The first is That act of ingraffing to the Church which is made Gods act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency is and can be no other ingraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election But such is the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 as appears from v. 23. Ergo. Mr. Sydenham answers that to argue from Gods power to his will or to election or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is strange unsound in Divinity and reason But this is no answer For there is no such arguing made by me My arguing is none of those ways he mentions but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power without which it were hopeless and impossible to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead from v. â—5 which sure no act of man can perform But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men therefore the ingraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church but an higher act of giving faith according to election But saith he It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ in Jews and Gentiles to bring to outward confession To which I reply it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers specially backt with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperours as experience hath often shewed therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the ingraffing But saith he It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all nations To which I reply 1. The gathering them together into one place is not ingraffing them into the visible Church for ingraffing them imports joyning them to others but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves the gathering into one place is accidental to their ingraffing iâ—to their own Olive he ingraffing may be without it and if they go together it is likely the ingraffing will be before that gathering and therefore that gathering and this ingraffing cannot be the same 2. That gathering may be by the power and favour of Emperors and Kings as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem and therefore is not this act of ingraffing
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
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
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ— the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their 's weakness is nothing The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace and implicit calling and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit or faith or profession of faith which are things that have no Scripture grounds The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation that it upholds a national Church â—e puts off only thus He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10 11 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22 of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church it cannot be denied but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members and by consequent the whole nation elder and â—onger are in the Church Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not SECT XLII Animadversions on Sect. 7 of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C sets down this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant in respect of external interest therein In which as almost in all his writings about this point there 's much ambiguity He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest nor what he means by the Covenant of grace what promise they are under nor how they are under it Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it nor what is the external interest therein which they have nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein and not with respect to internal interest For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 have this privilege that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised But I know not how it comes to pass this author either affects or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant seal Church-seed c. And not to explain his conclusions afore
are limited to a greater part and those of years the matter so requiring it as Matth. 2.3 3.5 Acts 8.10 c. Mr. B. adds How can Christ bid them Go and disciple all Nations if infants and so all the Nation are utterly uncapable of being disciples or how will Mr. T. expound the word all nations Answ. Had Mr. B. heeded the words of the 13. Section of the first part of my Examen or the 14th section of the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Bl. he might have found answer to these questions But I conceive upon very probable signes Mr. B. never studied my writings but lightly read them and I finde he hath dealt with me in like manner concerning my answers in the dispute at Bewdley and such passages as he excepts against which fell from me in private conference and that this is the reason of these and many more unnecessary questions he puts me to answer But if the Reader please to read the 2d part of tâ—is Review sect 5 c. he may see a full answer to these questions the sum whereof is this that Christ bids them Go and by preaching the Gospel Mark. 16.15 make disciples of or out of all nations and then baptize them who by believing the Gospel became disciples Mark 16.16 which may and must be understood with exclusion of infants as when he bids them preach the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16.15 Col 1.23 it was preached to every creature under heaven yet no infant meant And by way of retortion I do sâ—riously ask Mr. B. how he will expound the word all nations and how Christ can bid them disciple infants without making Christ a fool and a tyrant in commanding that which is ridiculous and impossible Mr B saith of me further He oft saith It is here one and there one out of a city or nation that God will call I shall say more to the shame of this speech afterwards yet let me say this much at present If it bee but some few or here and there one yea or but the most that Christ commandeth to disciple then we must endeavour to make but those few or most disciples for our endeavour must not go beyond our command and commission But this is most horrid Doctrine and notoriously false that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all but of some For Paul oft professeth his longing and endeavour to the contrary therefore it is as false that the command is not for the discipling all Answ. What Mr. B. hath said to the shame of my speech plain Scripture proof c. pag. 279 280. which is I think the place hee means is to the shame of so impudent an affronting of plain Scripture proof refelled in my Praecursor sect 22. which shame is not at all covered by hiâ— reply in his praefestinis morator sect 22. in which he doth not at all answer my proof out of Scripture for my speech but onely seeks to acquit himself from that which I charge him with as not rightly setting down my words which is his frequent fault Two parts of my speech he excepts against 1. that God will not call nor ever did a whole nation so as that every individual should be within the visible Church Against this he refers to his Addition pag. 339.340 and there he turns me over to Mr. Hudson and refers me to the answering of him when I answer the 20th Chapter of the first part of his plain Script c. But many of the texts and consequently the rest are shewed to bee impertinently alledged in the 2d part of this Review sect 9. where pag. 129. I was mistaken in what I said I know not what is in Mr. Bs. addition pag. 339 340. thinking then it had been some addition which was not in his first edition which now I finde otherwise and therefore if I say no more of that the Reader will not want an answer to the allegations in his addition pag. 339 340. 2. He excepts against what he conceives I say that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all but of some which he terms horrid doctrine and notoriously false On the otherside if my meaning be rightly understood to wit of persons that have not the use of reason such as inâ—ants natural fools c. I aver the contrary doctrine to be horrid and notoriously false for the reasons fore-given If he charge me with it that because I say God will not call a whole nation which I mean of effectuall call alluding to 1 Cor. 1.26 27 c. therefore I mean that we should endeavour to disciple none but such his charge is but a calumny No words of mine either in pulpit wâ—iting or private speech tended to such a sense As for what he saith Paul oft professeth his longing endeavour to the contrary if he mean contrary to my assertion it is most false He no where professeth his longing and endeavour to disciple the whole of a nation even the infants The profession he makes Philip. 1.8 is the fullest and likeliest to be meant by Mr. B. that comes to my thoughts which it were ridiculous to apply to infants they all being the same to whom he wrote entituled Saints in Christ v. 1. with whom he had fellowship in the Gospel v. 5. in whom God had begun a good work v. 6. who in his bonds and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel were partakers of his grace v. 7. whose love he mentions v. 9. Thus much for the proof of which Mr. B. was confident To his words If this my alleaging Gal. 4.1 c. Matth. â—8 19 as before be not to feign God to say what we would have him yea contrary to what he doth say then I am quite mistaken I answer I grant it and add that I do not call to minde that ever I found a man of so much fame and confidence so fouly mistaken as Mr. B. is in this point I proceed as fast as I can after M. B. who hath made the way foul by his scribling SECT LI. The arguments from the altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call the ceasing of the High Priest c. to prove Infants now no visible Church-members are made good against Mr. Bs. 5th Ch. plain c. part 1. BUt let us hear saith he whether his arguments be any clearer then these texts for him The sum of all his arguments that I can hear is this If the Church constitution whereof they were members be taken down then their membership is taken down but the Church c. therefore c. To prove the antecedent this is added If their Church call be altered then their Church constitution is altered but their Church call iâ— altered therefore c. To prove the minor he shews the different calls then and now 1. Then they were called by Moses or Abraham â—he Magistrate but now by Ministers 2. Then all the nation was
and none by God substituted Let them that have better eys then I find out this peculiar church-making call for I cannot Answ. My argument the Church call is altered from the way of making the Jewish Church by Abraâ—ams and Moses authority into the perswasive way of begetting faith by Ministers preaching the Gospel therefore the Church constitution is altered doth not help Seekers except it be acknowledged there is no Church now by Ministers preaching the Gospel but by meer authority of Magistrates which was heretofore the objection of Papists against the English churches bâ—t refelled by Protestants Jewel c. For I do not appropriate the Church call to the Apostles or men who could speak that which was meerly wholly undoubtedly insite implantedly the word of God as Borelius spake but to the preaching of the Gospel by any Minister of Christ or other instrument whereby faith is begotten and whereby aâ—one the Christian visible Church and all its members were called in a different way from the Jewish Church call which if Mr. B. do not see to have been the Christian peculiar church making call after his wrâ—ting in his Saints everl rest par 2. ch 6. sect 1. it seems he will not see iâ— and then wee may apply to him the Proverb Who so blinde as hee that will not see Mr. B. passeth on thus Well But may it not yet lie in the second point that they were all taken in to be a Church in one day Answ. 1. What day was that I would Mr. T. could tell me He saith Moses did it but that 's no truer then the rest For sure they were a Church before Moses time Did they begin to be a Church in the Wilderness or did Moses onely express the Covenant to them more fully and cause them oft to renew the Covenant and so onely confirm them a Church was not the circumcised seed of Abraham a Church in Aegypt and was the uncircumcised Host onely in the Wilderness the Church This is excellent arguing Answ. This is excellent answering not to deny what is objected but to propound cross interrogatories Suppose I could not assign the day is not the thing true But that Mr. B. may not lose his longing I tell him it was when Abraham circumcised his house Gen. 17.23 When Moses made a Covenant with them in Horeb Deut. 29.1 If I say Moses did it I say but what the Scripture doth Deut. 33.4 5. nor doth it want of truâ—h if it be no truer then the rest It is not true Israel had their Church call from Moses for sure they were a Church before Moses time this is Mr. Bs. excellent arguing As if the seed of Abraham a fluent being consisting of a succession of people might not have one Church call in one age another in another one by Abraham another by Isaac another by Jacob another by Moses Doth not Mr. B. himself pag. 122. tell us that Moses did cause them oft to enter and renew the Covenant I do not say they began to be a Church in the wilderness or that the seed of Abraham was not a Church in Aegypt or onely in the wilderness But this I say the Church call of that people was oft in several ages by the authority of the several Patriarchs and Rulers as God saw it needfull to bring them into Covenant for better fashioning establishing or recovering the Church fallen but for the most part by the authority of Rulers or if by a Prophet in an extraordinary manner as Elijahs days 1 Kin. 18. and that not by the way used in the Christian Church by a daily adding to the Church and multiplying it by preaching as Acts 2.47 6.1 but by authority calling the whole nation and people together into Covenant at once Again saith Mr. B. But Abraham took all his family to be a Church in one day you will say I answer First It is not proved when they began to be a Church Repl. Nor needs it 2 ly And would not Mr. T. now have a whole family made a Church in a day Is that his charity Repl. Yes and the whole world if it seemed good to God But we find not that he doth so or gives us any rule or president for us to do so in the constitution of the visible Church Christian any otherwise then by preaching the Gospel to them and baptizing Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. And sure my charity must not be my rule about the use of Gods Ordinances but my Lord and Masters appointment 3 ly Saith Mr. B. And what of it had been true if the whole Kingdome either it was with their câ—nsent or without without their consent they could not be made church-members for they could not enter into Covenant with Gâ—d Answ. If this be true then no infants are church-members And though it were true that none could enter into Covenant with God who is of age without his consent which seems to me otherwise yet the consent obtained meerly by the authority of Masters or Governours through fear or hopes without teaching and free acceptance of Christ upon the preaching of the Gospâ—l doth not make a visible member of the Christian Church however it did in the Jewish I do not think the Americans forced to be baptized by Spaniards or other people by the conquests of Charls the Great and other Christian Princes afore they knew Christ by teaching made Christians were such though there was some consent out of fear of loss of life or liberty if they were not Mr. B. adds And never was any such thing attempted Even Joshua treads in Moses steps and bids them chuse whether they will serve the Lord or not Jos. 24. Answ. Whether Abraham had the free consent of all his house to enter into Covenant with the Lord or whether he did circumcise some and take them to his Family Church without their consent is uncertain However if Abraham had a slave refractory which he was loath to lose yet he must circumcise him against his will because of the command with the penalty Gen. 17.12 13 14. And in the circumcising the Sichemites what was done and attempted is known Neither Moses nor Joshua did so leave it to the Jews liberty but that they would have cut off from the people by death any that refused to acknowledge God or that set up an Idol Asa's Covenant was of putting to death whosever would not seek the Lord God of Israel 2 Chron. 15.13 Whereas there is no such Law in the Christian Church that whoever shall not believe in Christ shall be put to death Yet further saith Mr. B. And it being with their consent that the nation were church members may not the like be done now What may not any or all the nations of the world be added to the Church if they will consent and enter the Covenant Answ. Yes they may so many as upon knowledge of Christ do freely consent to receive him in all
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
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
were visible members of the Church universal in that they were of the Church Jewish therefore they are in the Christian properly so called contradistinct to the Jewish Which speech I use as commonly Divines do because though the Jewish Church were Christs Church yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the dayes of the Apostles Acts 11.26 we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called that is which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching nor Moses in the Christian Church nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church as Aegypt though in Africa and Persia though in Asia yet are not said to be in Asia the less or Africa propria Mr. B. proceeds Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that it was not onely of the Jewes Commonwealth that infants were members of but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Answ. As yet I do not finde it proved that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth What is said about it sect 43. may be there seen by the Reader Moreover saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Churchmembers in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Commonwealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. Answ. Abrahams family and Isaacs and Jacobs were a Common-wealth although they were but small they had government within themselves Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself Gen. 14.14 Isaac made a league as a Prince coâ—ordinate Gen. 26.31 so did Jacob Gen. 31.53 These with other acts shew they were an independent Commonwealth 2. Saith Mr. B. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to bee members of their Commonwealth yet ceased not to bee of the Church Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews as they were of the Church both de jure and de facto they acknowledging themselves to be of that people and to aâ—here to their laws although somewhat restrained of their liberty as a captivated imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republique to which he hath not access 3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Commonwealth Nor the Sichemites Answ. The contrary is true as concerning the Sichemites is shewed before 4. Saith he Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Commonwealth Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members 5. Saith he The children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jewes Commonwealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Answ. Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary will be any thing but more words without proof SECT LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers by Promise or Precept as Mr. B. teacheth MR. B. proceeds To the 4th Qu. I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-engaging and devoting them to God and so entering them solemnly Churchmembers And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some infants and actually conferred it where his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terme Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sâ—gne of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a signe of Gods will de jure because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debiro of some due 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit to dâ—fference it from precepts which onely determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here is in opposition to what I said in my 2d Leâ—ter I confess infants were by Gods fact of takiâ—g the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Churchmembers that is of the Congregation of Israel and in my 3d. I explaiâ— my self a promise conferriâ—g infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring into Covenant which confers the benefit which were his own words in his first Letter so that if we prove by any other grâ—nt or deed of gift physical or moral which is not a promise of it by which it is conferred or by any Law which is not such a prâ—cept he contradicts not my speech and so disputes not ad idem Which whether he do or no will be perceived by examining what follows Having thus saith he explained the terms I prove the proposition If infants Churchmembership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to bee their God and to take them for his people to bee brought so near him and to bee separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope Answ. I do not deny it but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally or connexively For men may be visible Church-members and yet not have all this benefit and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Churchmembers Hypocrites may be visible Churchmembers yet not be Gods covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him c. And some believing Saints that are dumb may have all this and yet not be visible Churchmembers Mr. B. adds If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way Answ. I should but I would add that to bee the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Churchmembers Cornelius and his house were visible Churchmembers yet not the
And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Churchmember many years before Circumcision Answ. I grant all this 6. Saith he If this be your meaning I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of infants Churchmembership before Abrahams days if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur. Answ. I shall 7. Saith he If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any infants Churchmembers then it must be any one for you no more assign it to one of them then to another onely say chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt But surely some of these acts particularly â—annot do it As the leading to Padan Aram the removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving therâ— setling their Army c. Did any one of these make infants to become Churchmembers Answ. No But I did assign it to one of them more then to another to wit the beginning to Abrams call the accomplishing to the bringing of them out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 8. Saith he Nay suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the institution of Circumcision yet could not your Doctrine hold good For some of these acts are of an alien nature and no more apt to cause infant Churchmembership then a bull to generate a bird What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of infants Church-membership None I think at least if it be such an Army as ours For surely the setling of ours caused no such thing as you well know What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram or removal to Aegypt to make infants Churchmembers Nay how strange is it that the removing of Churchmembers and such as had been infant Churchmembers as Ishmael Keturahs children Esau must cause infant Churchmembership Sure it was no cause of their own Keturahs children were Churchmembers in infancy I enquire of you by what act they were made such You say by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part Very good It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews is a taking of the removed to be of that people or else it is not onely the taking that people but also the removal from that people that maketh Churchmembers even the removed as well as the taken both which are alike absurd Answ. 1. I mean not as Mr. B. supposeth I might 2. The setling of the Army had remotely causation of infants Churchmembership for by it the Israelites were a well formed Congregation Church or Commonwealth and by which the infants were a part which is their Church-membership 3. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling of the Church as that the Antiprelatists congregations had been either none or much oppressed iâ— they had not broken the force of the opposite party Nor dare I be so unthankfull to God or them as not to acknowledge the great mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby however Mr. B. fret at our liberty and jibe at the instruments 4. The leading to Padan Aram removal to Aegypt were acts of providence wherby Jacobs house were encreased and preserved which I conceive were some of those acts whereby he made them a people to himself 5. Ishmaels Keturahs children's Esau's removal were some acts whereby the congregation of Israel became Gods severed or a peculiar people 6. Keturahs children were visible Churchmembers while they were part of Abrahams house called after the people of the Jews by Gods taking of the people of the Jews and consequently them as a part and yet the removal of them was after one act whereby the people of the Jews were made to God a severed people from them and consequently their infants Churchmembers Distinguish the times and the different state of things and intentions of God in his providences and these seeming incoherences will be found consistent 9. Saith he And I pray you tell me yet a little better how an act can make a man a Churchmember that was one long before that was done You cannot here say that it was before in esse morali and had a moral causation How then could your chiefest act the bringing out of Aegypt make those infants Churchmembers that were born in Aegypt and were Churchmembers before Or how could it be any part of the cause Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Churchmember when he was in the basket on the waters And when you answer this you may do well to go a little fâ—râ—her and tell me how such an act concurreth to make him an infant Church-member that was dead an hunded or two hundred years before that act was done For example how did the setling of the Israelites Army or inheritance or the Covenant on Mount Sinai make Ishmael or Esau or Isaac or Jacob Churchmembers Answ. The infants of Israel were Churchmembers in that they were a part of the congregation or people af Israel which was a fluent body and was taken to be Gods Church by a succession of acts whereof some were causes which began some continued some compleated and the several acts made the Churchmembers of that age yet all by vertue of the first call of Abraham whereby God declared his intention to make his house a Nation and his Church first more obscurely then more clearly The bringing out of Aegypt tended to make the Israelites a severed people and consequently all that were Churchmembers were by that act such the setling of the Army inheritance Covenant at Mount Sinai tended to make them a well formed people and to the accomplishment of the taking the Jews to be Gods people and consequently the infanâ—s to be Churchmembers which came after them Which if so understood there is nothing in my conceit which infers the making that a cause which is after the effect 10. Saith Mr. B. I desire you also to tell me by the next what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430 years at least together so as to make them one fact And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years onely and whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact and assign it to this office Answ. 1. These acts are knit together into one fact by the unity of end designed and work accomplished as the many acts of several ages did make one fact of which the Poet speaks Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem to raise the Roman Empire 2. You might if God had so contrived it and brought the thing to pass in that time which he did in a longer 3. I
out of the Church yet sure if it were supposed a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out it seems to follow that God would do it sith all things work for their good and with his son he gives them all things Rom. 8.28 32. 1 Cor. 3.22 23. I will tell you saith Mr. B. how Mr. T. followeth this with examples He saith that the release of the Jews servants and the consecration of the Nazarites and first born and the land of Canaan were all priviledges and yet these are taken away To which I answer There are abundance far greater given in their stead And what is that then to those that have nothing in their stead Besides if Mr. T. think that the mercy of Churchmembership is of as low a nature as to be Nazarites or to have Canaan he is much mistaken Answ. Not onely these but other examples as namely of the Priests and Levites children who were by inheritance to attend at the Tabernacle and to be nourished by the offerings and to be Priests instead of which Ministers infants have now no particular mercy they are not visibly in the order of Priests as the infants of Aarons house were Of the poor who had tythes and corners of fields and sheaves fallen and other provision and so had the stranger do shew that a mercy was taken awâ—y from infants of Israel and no particular mercy in the same or the like kind given to infants of Christian people or Ministers in their stead When Mr. B. shâ—ws what those abundance for greater mercies are which are given in the stead of the release of the Hebrew servants even infants the restoring their inheritances at the year of Jubilee the consecration of Nazarites and first born even infants the reckoning the children of the Priests as heirs to the priesthood provision for them the poor the strangers it is likely the same he alledgeth will serve to shâ—w how infants visible Churchmembership is recompensed by the mercies now given to the whole Church and them Nor do I think I am mistaken in counting the mercy of infants visible Churchmembership to be of as low a nature as to be consecrated as Nazarites or â—he first born male which was to be presented to God or to be reckâ—ned by discent Priests but am sure Mr. B. doth over-value the Jewâ—sh infant visible Churchmembership and thereby misleads himself and others And therefore I desired him in my Letter to set down distinctly what was the benefit and priviledge of infant visible Church-membership which he asserted the refusal whereof when he desired to have a copy of my Sermon that he might as his fashion is cavil rather then answer it shews his unwillingness to have his tenet examined that truth might appear He adds But he saith that it was a priviledge to the Jews to be owned as Gods people distinct from the rest of the world while others were passed by yet this is repealed in mercy to us Gentiles Answ. In my distinctions before you may find this answered 1. Then it was no mercy to the Jews you think but to us Gentiles But our question is whether it be a mercy to the unchurched infants 2. The Jews being a Church and people of God was a mercy and this God took not from any of them but those that cast it away But the restraction of this to them and the excluâ—â—on of the Gentiles was no mercy to them and this onely with the ceremonial accidents did God take away by the charge of his Laws It would have been rather an adâ—iâ—ion to the happiness of the believing Jews to have the Gentiles taken in by taking down the partition wall And so it will be when the Jews are graffed in again and both made one body Why else doth the Jewish Church pray for her little sister that had no breasts And Noah pray that God would perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Sem Though the restriction therefoâ—e and the exclusion which are no mercies to the Jews be taken away yet no mercy iâ— taken from them but what is supplied with a far greaâ—er in Christ And though they partake not of these yet that is because of their oâ—n unbelief who reject it and not because the new law doth exclude them For God hath in his new law or Covenant made a deed of gift of Chriâ—â— and all his benefits to all that will receive him whether Jew or Gentile without excluding or excepting any And for his denying to particular persons the grace of conversion that is nothing to our present business as belonging to decree and not to any change in the laws And it was denied to many before Christ and granted to many thousands Jews since Christ and shall be at last to far more Answ. The vanity of his distinctions is shewed before the repeal of the priviledge of the Jews mentioned was in mercy to the Jew believer though chiefly to the Gentiles and the infants of both but in justice to the Jewish nation The Jews being a Church and people of God was a mercy anâ— to be the onely nation that were Gods people was an agravation of it and this God took away from believers they were put out of the Jewish Church national Joh. 9.22 It was a mercy that the Jews were the onely nation God took for his people and this God did take away not by change of his laws though that followed but by his severity Râ—m 11.22 breaking off that nation from the Olive It would have been a happiness to the believing Jews to have had the Gentiles taken in without dissolving the national Church Jewish if God had thought it good but he otherwise determining it was a mercy to the catholick Church that they were dissolved If no mercy be taken from them but what is supplied with a far greater in Christ then Christ in the flesh is instead of the Jewish Church national and consequently of the infants visible Churchmembership therein a far greater mercy which I said before and Mr. B. gainsaid That in Gods new Covenant there 's no deed of gift of Christ but to the elect is proved before Mr. B. ends thus And thus you have heard all that Mr. T. upon deliberation hath said to this argument And yet would any man think it he concludeth that that this abundant clear answer to all alledged from the visible Churchmembership of the children of the Jews O never let my soul be tainted with this errour which so strangely bereaves men of common ingenuity Answ. Let my answer and Mr. Bs. argument be compared and the Reader judge of our ingenuity I for my part hope and pray that God will never leave me to be carried away with such frivolous reasonings as these of Mr. B. are SECT LXV Mr. Bs. Argum. from Matth. 23.37 Revel 11.15 for infants visible Churchmembership Ch. 12 13. are answered I Have answered Mr. Bs. 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th Chapters of the first part of his
of the universal Church When all the Jews were scattered abroad in captivity so that they had neither temple nor altar nor priest but perhaps one live in one Town and another in another as they do at this day you could not say that these were of the visible particular Church of the Jews though you might say still that they were Abrahams seed and they and their children were members of the visible universal Church Answ. The consequence is good as I frame it Their churchmembership visible ceaseth who were visible Churchmembers onely in that they were part of that visible Church which now ceaseth But so it was concerning infants visible churchmembership ergo it ceaseth Which is different from that which Mr. B. imposeth on me To his suppositions I say that they were in that case members of the visible particular Church of the Jews which was a particular Church and so accounted even in their captivity though not in a flourishing estate as in their own countrey And for the instance of Keturahs children when they left the Church of Abrahams family if their infants were visible Church-members which I conceive they were not then it was because they joyned themselves as proselytes to the Hebrew people which I think is not true and therefore conceive if any of Keturahs children who left the Church of Abrahams family professed the God of Abraham they were members of the universal but not their infants And â—or what Mr. B. adds â—f a Jew then or a Christian now were cast upon the coasts of America where he should never be a member of a particular Church more yet he should be a member of the universal still I grant it while they profess God in Christ. And for what he adds Neither Joseph Mary nor Jesus in his infancy were unchurched because they lived in Aegypt though I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Churchmember property but I pass by that I grant it for they remained members of the Jewish Church then when they were in Aegypt as I presume Mr. B. counts those of his Church of Kederminster members still who may by imprisonment traffique service of the State in war sickness or otherwayes be absent thence in England or forreigne parts against their will 6. Saith he Again to lose their standing in the visible universal Church is to lose their place in the visible body 1 Cor. 12.13 and in the house oâ— the living God 1 Tim. 3.15 the pillar and ground of truth But to be removed from one particular Church or from every particular Church is no casting out of Christs body or Gods house therefore it will not follow upon the removal from a particular Church that they are removed from the universal especially when we are not speaking of individual infants but of the whole species So that I think this argument is unanswerable Infants were members of the universal visible Church as Mr. T. confesseth This is the Church that we are now baptized into and this Church constitution is not altered or taken down therefore infants membership of this Church is not taken down what ever it be of the Jews particular Church Answ. The consequence is good as I framed it in the paragraph next before yea though Mr. Bs. two propositions here be granted Nor can Mr. B. overthrow it â—â—ll he prove that the Jews infants had a standing in the universal visible Church severed from their standing in the Jewish particular for which he hath yet brought no proof His saying that he spake of the whole species not of individual infants makes his speeches to appear ridiculous non-sense For the whole species hath no standing in the visible Church universal or particular nor can be said to be admitted in or cast out or removed from one or every particular Church These things cannot be said of a species but of individuals sith a species is conceived abstractively from all individuificating circumstances of time place c. which must be conceived in visible Churchmembership and removal or casting out And that we are baptised now into that universal visible Church in which infants were members is utterly false and that the Church constitution is altered in that the Jewish particular Church ceaseth iâ— proved before therefore there is notâ—ing in this argument unanswerable As for what Mr. B. adds to this Chapter p. 339. I finde not that â—e brings any more strength in it which needs further answer He refers me to Mr. Hudsons vindic but tels me not what part he would have me answer perhaps there is not any thing in the book that opposeth mee besides what is already answered and I am not yet so obsequious to Mr. B. as to go ovâ—r a whole book to finde an adversary to fight with if Mr. B. knâ—w any strength in it to oppose me with he should have himself produced it or referred me to the particular place where I might finde it As for the texts which hee cites out of Mr. Hudson an answer is fuâ—ly made to what hee brings them for in the 2d paâ—t of this Revâ—ew â—ect 9. in which Mr. B. and others may see how shamefully they abuse Scripture to prove a church national comprehending infants like the Jewish in the time of the Goâ—pel And I add that if Mr. B. weigh Mr. Hudsons words in his vindic ch 4 sect 5. p. 93 94. I acknowledge the Jews to be a national Church But my description of the Church Catholike was of the Church as it is now sâ—nce the partitition wall is broken down fâ—r then it became Catholike I conceive there were believers of the sons of Keturah that dâ—d not partake of all the priviledges of the Jewish Church except they became proselytes It is the Evangelical Catholike Church which my question is about into which the Jewes themselves being converted were admitted by a new initial seal viz. baptism and did not stand in it by their former national membership but received a Catholike membership by baptism I conceive that a man of any nation converted to be a visible believer is a member of the Church Catholike enâ—itive and hereby hath right to all Church priviledges that belong to the whole Church Gods method usâ—d in the national Church of the Jews bâ—ing in populo Israelitico mâ—st â—eeds differ from the method in populo Catholico hee will finde that learned man speaking as much for my purpose as his own They thaâ— boldly affirm that Christs Covenant his satiâ—faction his Church his sealing extend to any more then elect joyn with the Arminians against the Scripture and the most approved Protestants and the contrary contains no desperate expressions as Mr. B bâ—ing mâ—sleaâ— speaks Mr. Hudsons words pag. 220. are not right If any hold that the believing Jews children are still Churchmembers and yet deny that the Gentiles children are so hee may hold it still notwithstanding the assault made by Mr. B. here For by the taking down the partition wall
or sincere believers As for what he said before about the falling away of the ingraffed is answered before But Mr. Bl. yet adds There is a national pardon and a personal pardon iâ— oâ—t applied to a national return as 2 Chron. 7.14 Jerem. 18.7 8. there it is the removal of drought locusts pestilence here their judgement was the vail of blindness not assenting to the Gospel light and they shall be saved from this blindness as the Text expressly hath it v. 25 26. Answ. This blindness is no way removed but by giving of faith as is proved before and therefore this proves for me the ingraffing to be giving faith according to election and all the ingraffed to be elect Yet once more saith Mr. Bl. The words quoted out of v. 26 27. are partly from Isa. 59.20 and partly from Jerem. 31.34 as I conceive which in the Prophets are directly spoken of a national return and national pardon as Mr. B. of one of them hath well observed but in New Testament Scriptures variously applied as all know that text of Habakkuk is ch 2.4 That of Jeremy is applied personally but here as the context is clear it must bee applied nationally to Israel according to the flesh The vail shall be taken from them on whom it lies it lies on Israel according to the flesh what mystery had the Apostle revealed in case he had onely shewed that all elect bâ—lievers should be saved Answ. Though that were no mystery yet it was a mystery that God shouâ—d contrive it so that Israel Gods people formerly should now be blind and the Gentiles see and when their fulness is come in then all Israel should be saved who were then broken off And this salvation is to be national and yet spiritual there being a national effectual conversion to God although all of the nation be not converted as well as there is a national return from captivity and yet not all return The words being quoted from â—sai 59.20 Jer. 31.34 there being no reason to the contrary they shoulâ— be applied personally here as â—hey are Heb. 8.12 10. â—6 17. I shall close up the vindication of this argument with the words of Dr. Owen of perseverance Ch. 7. § 24. The force then of this promise Isa. 59. â—0 and the influence it hath into the establishment of the truth we have in hand the perpetual abiding of the spirit with the Saints will not be evaded and turned aside by affirming that it is made to the whole people of Israel For besâ—des that the spirit of the Lord could not bee said to bee in the ungodly rejected part of them nor his word in their mouth there is not the least in text and context to intimate such an extent of this promise as to the object of it and 't is very weakly attempted to bee proved from Pauls accommodation and interpretation of the v fore going in Rom. 11.26 For it is most evident and indisputable to any one who shall but once cast an eye upon that place that the Apostle accommodates and applies these words to none but onely those who shall be saved being turned away from ungodliness to Christ which are onely the seed before described And those hee cals all Israel either in the spiritual sense of the word as taken for the chosen Israel of God or else indefiniâ—ely for that nation upon the account of those plentiful fruits which the Gospel shall finde amongst them when they shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter dayes My seventh argument was If the re-ingraffing bee by vertue of Gods election and love his gifts of calling then it is into the invisible Church by election and giving of faith But the former is true v. 28 2â— Ergo the latter Mr. S. answers 1. It 's said that as touching election the Jews are beloved for their fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham Answ. It followes not of believing Gentiles and their natural seed for this is spoken peculiarly of the Jews Nor doth it follow of all the natural seed of Abraham the contrary is determined Rom. 9.6 7 8. nor of any at all times as in the time of their great Apostasie Much less doth it hence follow as it hath been pleaded for Paedobaptism that because God loved the Jews for the fathers sake therefore wee are to take in the parcels all the infants of inchurched believers to bee elect and in the Covenant of Grace and thereupon to baptise them this to my apprehension hath not a shadow of consequence But saith Mr. S. 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their recalling then of any nation but yet still the argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is onely or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing Answ. Yet the arg is of force to prove it is into the invisible Church so as none are re-ingraffed but the elect and partakers of inward graces though it were granted that their re-ingraffing be specially and firstly into the visible Church Yea Mr. Ss reason is against himself for if their re-ingraffing be not firstly and specially into the invisible Church by faith there wil be no correspondence between their re-ingraffing and rejection which was firstly and specially from the invisible Church by unbelief Mr. Bl. answers thus His election love and gifts of calling did at the first put them into a visible Churchstate and condition Deut. 7.7 8. And the same love election and gifts of calling now they are broken off doth re-ingraff them if this argument hold it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Aegypt Answ. According to Mr. Bl. the Apostle should mean that the election and love Rom. 11.28 are meant of such election and love as may be to them that perish and such a calling and gifts as may be lost for such the election into a meer visible Churchstate and condition and calling and love and gifts are which Mr. Bl. p. 302. will have to be the meaning of the Apostle here But this is not meant here 1. because that election love gifts and calling are here meant as are from the Covenant of the Redeemer v 26 27. and whereby all Israel shall be saved this is manifest from the connexion the words v. 28 29. being a confirmation of the proposition all Israel shall be saved v. 26. from the Covenant to turn away impieties from Jacob and to take
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
a sufficient reason for infant baptism as will be shewed in the sequel The first thing I except against this Exposition that when it is said Gen. 12.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he takes it for granted it is to bee understood actively as if the meaning were that Abraham should be a blessing to others whereas as Pareus in his Com saith it may be an amplification of the things going before thou shalt bee altogether and very blessed in which sense we use often the abstract for the contract as a man very honest is called honesty Yea the LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt be blessed Piscat schol Vel esto in benedictionâ— hoc est benedictus Diodati annot Blessed every way as if all blessings were gathered together in thee or a pattern of a compleat blessing 2. That he takes iâ— as iâ— what is said must bee applicable to all believers that they shall be blessings in their generations But this is not proved from the text which onely speaks of Abraham being a blessing and though it is true Heb. 6.14 the promise of blessâ—ng to Abraham is made a promise of which all believers are heyrs v. 17. yet is it plain from many passages in that Chapter v 9 11 12 15 18 19. that it is meant that they are heirs of the promise of blessing to themselves in enjoying salvation as Abraham did not of imparting blessing to others 3. That he takes it as if it must follow that if Abraham were a blessing to others it must bee in that spiritual blessings according to election were in some proportion entailed to the postâ—rity and neighbourhood of all true believers But Pareus thus Some expound it actively thou shalt be a blessing that is thou shalt bless others my blessing shall not bee shut up in thee alone but out of thee it shall flow also to others Blessing shall so stick in thee wheresoever thou comest that by thy ministry others may also come to a blessing Nor do the exposition of some Hebrews seem to bee refused that Abraham shall be a publike example of all sort of blessing in the world so that all that wish well to themselves or oâ—hers may wish for the happiness of Abraham Or as the new annot in Gen. 12.2 shalt be a blessing That is more then thou shalt have a blessing for in this blessing is virtually comprised the happiness of both worlds and of all that are truely blessed in all ages whereof though God be the onely Author Abraham is honoured to bee a principal means under him to bring it to pass in being the progenitour of the promised seed and setting such an example of beliefe as might qualifie him to be stiled father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 12. The world shall receive by thy seed which is Christ the blessing which it lost in Adam Mr. C. himselfe denies not to bee included in this promise that of Abraham and his seed the Lord CHRIST should come but saith if it bee restrained onely to this then it will follow that all those of the Line of CHRIST were blessings to the World as well as hee To which I reply 1. if the sense given be included as he grants then his sense is not necessary nor can any thing be proved by it 2. Though the speech in the sense given bee restrained yet the absurdity followes not sith the being a blessing by begetting Christ is not so invested in any as in Abraham who is made the first Trustee as it were of this blessing by the Covenant or Charter granted to him 4. I except that in the promise In thee or in thy seed shall all the families or Nations of the earth bee blessed Mr. Carter conceives thee and thy seed to comprehend every believer Whereas the Apostle expounds Acts 3.25 in thy seed of Christ onely and in thee Galath 3.8 9. of Abraham onely with whom as the pattern oâ— believing and beeing blessed they which bee of the faith are blessed I deny not that by Abrahams seed believers are meant Gen. 17.7 and Gen. 15.5 and that the Apostle Rom. 4.18 Gal. 3.29 and elsewhere so expounds it But no where do I finde the promises Gen. 1â— 3 18.18 22.18 expounded so as that in thy seed should noâ—e every believer and the sense in which Mr. Carter takes it as if in every believer all the families of the earth should bee blessed it is derogatory from Abrahams peculiar priviledge one way understood another from Christs and not much short of blasphemy 5. That hee makes families and nations of the earth to bee different in the promises mentioned as appears by his words and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to nations whereas the holy Ghost makes no such difference For as the same promise which is expressed by families Gen. 12.3 is expressed by nations Gen. 18.18 so in the new Testament the promise Gen. 12.3 where the word is rendred families is expressed Gal. 3.8 by nations and the term which is Gen. 22.18 all the nations of the earth is Acts 3.25 all the kindreds or families of the earth as Mr. C. would have it 6. Mr. C. seems by families to whom believers should be a blessing children as when hee saith God will ordinarily cast children elect upon elect parents and by nations neighbourhoods as when hee saith the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together whereas families in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the LXX Gen. 12.3 that is tribes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3.25 notes more then posterity or housholds even whole tribes and kinreds that draw their line from one great Ancestour and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a whole people of one language though in their dwellings so remote as to have no entercourse one with another I will not trouble my self to enquire what difference there is between the words in Hebrew and Greek which are translated families tribes kindreds nations This I am sure they contain greater and more ample numbers of men then those who live together under one roof or one town and if from thence the extent of the Covenant be inferred to posterity of believers and their neighbours and so the seal of the Covenant as Mr. C. doth because believers are promised to bee a blessing to posterity and neighbours it will follow from the termes families and nations that they are blessings to whole parishes townes cities and nations and they are to be baptised and parochial city national Churches to bee set up again against which Mr. C. with his brethren have so much hitherto contended 7. By Mr. Cs. exposition whereas the promises are that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in a believer this is brought to so narrow a compass as that it is restrained to posterity and neighbourhood 8. The manner how in believers their posterity
that reason which if it were good the consequent is sound nevertheless What hee adds if the external part under the Gospel belong not to infants the Gospel and that made with Abraham are two distinct Covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnal as the carnal Anabaptists affirm their portion no better then Turks they made as Calvin observs as beasts whereas the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is everlasting is true thus far that the Covenant Gen. 7.17 so farre as it did assure righteousness to Abrahams spiritual seed by faith was the Gospel Covenant the same with ours made in Christ and everlasting but this is nothing to prove that there was such an external part of outward ordinances belonging to infants in that Covenant But that Covenant is mixt Mr. Cr. himself saith there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings in it though in the main the Covenant were spiritual and that part belonged to the Israelites by nature onely not to our children at all So that Mr. Crags terms of carnal and gross put upon us and Calvins observation are but reproaches and calumnies by Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists devised and used by them wickedly to make us odious but in time their wickedness will return on their own head Sect. 7. Mr. Crs. speeches of infants sad condition without baptism are like the Popish talk of the necessity of baptizing infants that they may enter into Gods kingdome By denying their baptism we deprive them not of Gods Covenant The priviledges Rom. 3.2 9.4 were peculiar to the Jews Did he write with heed he would not say they belong to infants of Gentiles under the Gospel When I say Baptism is not an ordinary meanes of salvation without faith I mean that no ones baptism but the baptism of true believers is an ordinary meanes of salvation which is true though there may be true baptism without true saving faith if it be professed His talk of preaching to infants by presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached without manifesting to the understanding is another of his wild conceits It 's no contradiction to say infants are not saved by ordinary meanes to wit preaching the word c. and yet to say they are saved by election redemption the work of Gods spirit sith by ordinary means I understand and so do others the Word and Sacraments and Christian discipline It is false he saith of me p. 146. that I confess if I knew infants were elected I would baptize them or that here I acknowledge of the species or sort of believers infants that they are not onely elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit Sect. 8. the major of his Syllogism That which was proposed and entertained with success amongst the Jews which were the natural seed of Abraham was not onely made with the spiritual seed of Abraham p. 147. is denied he is grossely mistaken in conceiving believing Jews were not Abrahams spiritual seed and his arguing that many of the natural seed of Abraham were believers under the Gospel Rom. 4.11 12. to prove it confirms the contrary For all that are true believers not every professour of faith or elect are Abrahams spiritual seed and this I often expressed plainly and Mr. Cr. knew well enough but says I speak ambiguously that he may have some colour for his random roving talk of persons in visible Covenant being children of the promise and Abrahams seed which is much of it non-sense unproved dictates and quite beside the meaning of the texts Rom. 4.11 12 16. 9.8 which make none Abrahams seed and children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelical but true believers or elect persons as is amply before proved Sect. 28 29. The rest of his scribling in that Section runs on these two mistakes 1. That there is now under the Gospel a national Church as the Jews was and that the expression Ephes. 3.6 may be applied to this whole Nation 2. That there is such an outward visible Covenant which God hath made with such a whole visible National Church which is not proved from Deut. 29 10 12. Joh. 1.11 Psal. 50.5 Joh. 15.2 two of which speak not at all of the Gospel Covenant nor of Gods making a Covenant with them but of theirs with God the 2d is expresly meant onely of true believers the 4th of being a branch in Christ which it's true may be meant of a visible professour but not of being in the Gospel Covenant of grace in which none any where are said to be nor is God said any where to make it to any but true believers or elect persons as is proved Sect. 33. There is not any thing Sect. 9. that I need reply to saving that he grants that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 11 12. is made onely to the elect if by the Covenant I mean the end event and success thereof which I confess I do and acknowledge that I abhor any conceit to the contrary as if God should make a Covenant to any which should not have the end event and success answerable to his promise and therefore this Covenant promising things which none in the event have but the elect can bee said to be made by God to none but them unless we will charge God with falshood mutability or impotency Sect. 10. That Isa. 49.21.23 is a prophesie of the reducing the Jews from Babylonish captivity is evinced from v. 19 20 21. in that the description of the places wast and desolate the land of their destruction the place which was too strait are meant of the land of Canaan and Mr. Cr. himself thus v. 20. the place is too strait for me that is the Land of Canaan is too narrow to contain the whole Church and he himself expounds after thou hast lost the other v. 20. of the natural seed of Abraham and the being desolate a captive and removing too and fro off Jerusalem But he will have it meant of the time after the destruction by Titus and the dispersion after it for we never find it verified literally that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity as the words point to contain the Jews But where do the words point that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity to contain the Jewes The words point at the multitude of Jews after the return from the Babylonish captivity at which time according to Zechariah his prophesie ch 8.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. the Jews mightily encreased and prospered and the place desolate confessedly being meant of Canaan and Jerusalem and the Jewes the Captives the sense of v. 22 23. is meant undoubtedly in the first sense of the words of the Jews reduction from captivity which was not true of them after the destruction by Titus therefore of their return from Babylon by Cyrus and other Persian and Grecian Kings and Queens favour The
say they by his promising Abraham temporal things Gen. 17.8 therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace It is true both in my Exercitation and in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 2. and else where I deny the Covenant made with Ahraham Gen. 17. to be a pure Gospel-Covenant and aver it to be mixt and shew how it is mixt to wit of promises not belonging to every one with whom the New Covenant of the Gospel is made but respecting peculiarly Abrahams house and the policy of Israel and that the promises Evangelical are delivered Gen. 17. in words expressing proper benefits to Abraham and his natural seed though in the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost Evangelical promises were meant and therefore it may be well doubted whether that Covenant may be termed simply Evangelical Yea the Scripture where it speaks of this Covenant often mentions no other promise but of the Land of Canaan as Exod. 6.4 Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. 1 Chron. 16.17 18. Act. 7.5 Where Stephen mentions Gods promise to Abraham he mentions that of the land of Canaan and vers 8. calls the promise of Canaan the Covenant of Circumsion Wherefore Cameron in his Thescs of the threefold Covenant of God Thesi. 78. saith That Circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily Whence I inferre that when Paedobaptists speak of Circumcision as if it were a Seal of the Covenant of Grace onely and from it gather Rules and Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of Baptism in the New Testament as if the Reason of Circumcising Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or Nation of Israel but onely out of the respect it had to the promise of Evangelical grace they do but mislead the people and speak their own conceits and not the Language and minde of the Scripture To this Master Drew saith I answer The Scripture no where calls that Covenant a mixt Covenant but on the contrary notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel-Covenant Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace outward things as appurtenances altered not the Covenant nor made it mixt at all unless that Covenant we live under be mixt too for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel Rom. 8.32 1 Cor. 3.22 23. 1 Tim. 4.8 Besides this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of justification Rom. 4.2 3. of Grace vers 4. of Faith vers 13. and I am perswaded that Abraham had not been called the Father of the Faithful if Believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God with that in which he stood as for differences in the manner of administring and dispensing that Covenant they matter nothing if there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a Covenant of Grace but no man is able to make this appear therefore this exception weakens not our proposition nor the Argument at all I reply if it be true which I allege that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8 was a mixt Covenant as I shew in the places forecited and that Circumcision injoyned vers 9 10 11 12. had reference as a signe or token not onely to that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed but also to the promises which peculiarly respect the house of Abraham and policy of Israel which cannot be understood to belong to every believer as vers 7. to be the father of many Nations to be exceeding fruitful that God would make Nations of him and Kings should come out of him that he would give unto him and his seed after him the Land wherein he was a stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession Then it follows that the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. is not onely from the promise vers 7. but those other promises and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another as well as that vers 7. and then if the argument be good The Infants of those to whom the promise is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are to have the first seal because of the dependence there it will follow he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a possession he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings he is likewise to be sealed with the first seal sith there is as much dependence in the text of Circumcision on the promises vers 4 5 6 8. as on the promise vers 7. so that if this reasoning of Master Drew's be good for my part I see not but that the Turk possessour now of Canaan may be intitled to Baptism by the same reason he produceth for Infant-baptism of Believers children Now whereas he saith That the Scripture no where calls that Covenant mixt I grant it and it is true also that it no where calls it a pure Gospel-covenant nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace or the first seal yet the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed there is no reason to except against the expression Nor can it be true that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament Which is most evident for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan but rather an assurance of persecution no promise of such greatness as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations but rather of obscurity and debasement A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises is rare in the Old Testament except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant God made a Covenant with David Psal. 89.3 c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant yet therein are promises peculiar to his house as vers 30 31 32 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim were domestical in the first place and the most open expressions Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abrahams Covenant which I avouch That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace For the word is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered in Christum by the Tigurines into or unto Christ or as Master Dickson renders it respectu Christi in respect of Christ That is as in his paraphrase with relation to Christ or as Diodati whose foundation was Christ not as the Testator but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made or as the executor by whom
were prohibited to be circumcised it being limitted to the males on the 8. day Mr. M. addes I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours that it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eight day was past and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That Circumcision might be administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the 8. day Answ. Where I deliver this that Circumcision might be administred oftner than once I remember not except in my Examen page 118. However I conceive no necessity of Circumcision or baptism above once yet I profess my self unsatisfyed in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once onely baptized And my reason of the speech is from hence 1 Cor. 7.18 the Apostle saith Is one called circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him not be drawn up that is let him not draw up his foreskin we translate it Let him not become uncircumcised Whence it may be perceived that some Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin Now in such a case while the Law stood in force I conceive he was bound to be circumcised again because it was to abide in his flesh Gen. 17.13 Nor do my words at all contradict this when I say more fully then Mr. M. recites them It had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore or after the eigth day in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God where I make the sin not to be the doing of it on the eighth day and then doing it again though I deny not but unnecessarily to do it after the eight day had been sin that day being determined for it but not doing it that day which God appointed by those that altered or swerved from that appointment unnecessarily which in the case mentioned and any other of the like might be done after the eighth day But M. M. will confirm his proofs that the women were circumcised in the men My first saith he to me was that the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer that by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the Major part But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfyed with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is all the rest of the World who were not the people of God When Peter was to go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel does not circumcision include the women Jews as much as the men in opposition to Gentiles as well as the word Gentiles includes women Gentiles as well as the men to whom Paul was sent Gal. 2.8 9. Surely it must needs be granted that not only the Major or nobler part but the whole nation of the Jews both men and women are there meant by circumcision which could not have been if in some sense they were not to be accounted circumcised Answ. My Answer might satisfie any judicious Reader specially if the texts had been fairly set down by Mr. M. wherein I shew all Israel and all the house of Israel must be understood Synecdochically 1 Sam. 7.3 Acts 2.36 Acts 13.24 And if in the term circumcision be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the part not onely every individual in Israel must be in some sense accounted circumcised but be actually circumcised also in their own persons Nor against such a Synecdoche doth it make that circumcision stands in opposition to the uncircumcised which is meant of every individual For neither is it true when the uncircumcised are mentioned it is meant of every individual there being many of those nations that were circumcised and if it were true yet the opposition doth not prove every individual Jew circumcised any more then when they are called the holy Nation in opposition to the Gentiles as when it was said Israel was holiness to the Lord Jerem. 2.3 every Israelite or Jew must be counted holy in some sense but the terms are attributed Synecdochically And for the other instance I grant circumcision must include Gal. 2.8 women as well as men because Peter was to go to them but this proves not that women were in some sense accounted circumcised in the males but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcision Synecdochically because of the males And for the term Gentiles there must be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part else he should be sent to preach to infant males as well as women of years Secondly saith Mr. M. I argued thus no uncircumcised might eat the Passoever Ergo their women might not have eaten it if in some sense they had not been circumcised Your answer is This is to be limitted pro subjecta maâ—eria none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passeover unless they were circumcised But this answer is altogether insufficient For where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the word of God other Distinctions about eating the Passeover are cleerly found the clean might eat it the unclean might not eat it the circumcised might the uncircumcised might not But of your limitation there is altum silentium Answ. Mr. Ms. conclusion is That in some sense women were circumcised and before in some sense they were counted circumcised neither of which is the same with this they were circumcised virtually in the males or the males were circumcised in their stead as their Proxy or Atturney 2. My answer was right and to his Demand where it is found in the word of God I answer by another demand where is his limitation found in Gods word that women might eat the Passeover because they were in some sense accounted circumcised Sure the words are Exod. 12.48 No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof not as Mr. M. none but those that are counted in some sense circumcised may eat thereof If there be in Scripture that which doth necessitate to a limitation of that speech my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is yea my limitation is plain and easie whereas his limitation is liable to this objection that when Gods Law requires persons to be circumcised that they might eat the Passeover if Mr Ms. limitation or explication be good it should require no more but this that persons in some sense should be accounted circumcised For so Mr. M. understands the Law and then though the males were not actually circumcised but virtually in some sense so accounted they might eat it without breach of the Law which absurdity doth not follow on my limitation but follows inevitably on Mr. Ms. 2. Saith Mr. M. I demand further where is there any command or institution for women to eat the Passeover
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as is a limitting term appropriating the thing said to those subjects forenamed who were so qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly which was the prime inducement I conceived the speech of Peter had not been true without that limitation And this I long since told Master M. in my Exam. part 3. Sect. 6. pag. 60. If the promise be of saving graces if of Christ sent if of the outward ordinances of baptism c. if of the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts it is none of these wayes true without that limitation For neither God promised saving graces nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them And but that Master Bls. Master Bs. and such like wonderers heedlesness and peevishness are no strange thing to me I should wonder that Master Blake should no better heed my words in my Examen nor Diodati his words who he saith fully pitches upon the true sense of it which in his Annot. on Acts. 2.39 are these shall call namely by his Gospel So he doth restrain the Israelites to whom the promises are directed onely to those who by Gods gift believe in Christ see Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.28 which had Master Blake faithfully set down in stead of some other words I find in him his Reader might have discerned how false it is that the promise is to an infant child of a believer as his child without calling and have discerned that it is not my device onely but that which others before me apprehended and so no more boldness in my dealing with the Scriptures then was meet and the Apostles words to have this plain sense the promise is to you being called of God and to your children being called of God and to all afar off being called of God and to no other And to requite Master Blake I may more truly say It 's a wonder how it came into Master Blakes head to call this limitation an amplification For though the words to all that are afar off contain an amplification of the mercy either to the posterity of the Jewes or to those in the dispersion or to the Gentiles of which I will not now dispute yet the words as many as the Lord our God shall call are a plain limitation of his speech as I have proved But Master Blake addes of me 2. In that he saith this promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called is a full contradiction A Jew uncalled at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them is as much as a convert unconverted or a Gentile disciple undiscipled In case he think to come off by limiting it to an effectuall call the Scripture by himself quoted doth evidently contradict it Christ came to give them that effectuall calling and not onely to those that were thus called Ans. Master Blakes charge of contradictions is as frivolous as his wonderment Master Blakes conceit of a calling into such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is but a dream of his own for which he hath not one Scripture nor other proofe The calling is to communion with Christ and an effectuall calling else the proposition were not true nor is there any contradiction in any of the places by me quoted to this exposition the promise of Christ is fulfilled for the remission of your sins and your childrens and all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call and no other nor hath Master Blake shewed any For though Christ came to give effectual calling yet it is true also he came to give remission onely to those that were thus called nor is there any opposition much less contradiction in those speeches Master Blake goes on He yet said Peter doth exhort to repentance and baptism together and in the first place perswades to repentance then to baptism which shewes repentance to be in order before baptism To which he answers not by denying it but by giving a reason of it because they had crucified Christ c. To which I reply this grant shewes that they had not right to baptism without repentance though the promise were to them they were in the Church-state of the Jewes c. and consequently Master Blakes proposition false Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains in his sense have a right to baptism What he addes And yet he shewes that they and their seed are under the promise of God and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender in his present way of administration to be continued his people still in Covenant and that as is plainly enough signified that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children that the Jewes even those that had not yet embraced Christ were not yet dispossest of the promise but stood as a people of God in visible covenant and their children in the sense in which Master Blake means is false and yet were it true it is against Master Blakes proposition sith notwithstanding this being in covenant yet were they not admitted or to be admitted to baptism without repentance He addes Master T. hath yet this evasion and saith the text speak◠not expresly of infants but of children indefinitely and if infants be not children we will be content that they be cast out of covenant and will hold no plea for their Church-membership and baptism Ans. As infants are children so are men and women of twenty or more years old and therefore the term children unless it be proved to be taken universally or particularly of infants the Covenant-state as they call it though we should grant such an estate there meant would not be thence concluded And yet infants were to be circumcised not simply because they were Abrahams seed nor because in Covenant but by reason of Gods command And though a woman and disciple be not Synonyma yet women being numbred among disciples it is an express example of womens coming together to break bread which mentions the disciples breaking bread nor was I at all put to it much less hard put to it when this came in for an answer For without this an answer was given before to the Argument and this was added as an over-plus and so was that which Master Blake nibbles at in that which followes I had said the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all of whom we are but of the children of the Jews and therefore if that promise be extended to infants which doth not appear the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jewes infants To this Master Blake thus saith If the Gospel held out any such transcending priviledges appertaining to the seed of the Jewes above the Gentiles Master T. may do well to produce a text for it otherwise we shall take
ad dictum simpliciter is â—allacious As for my speech which he saith symbolizeth with Bellarmine if it be true it is not the worse for that nor did I blame Mr. M. for symbolizing with Arminius in a truth but for agreeing with him in that explication which doth undermine the true explication of Rom. 9.8 which the Contraremonstrants prove from the Text. If Bellarmine did by mystical sense mean the same which I did by the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost and by the Letter what I express by the outward face of the words I see not that either Chamier or Mr. Bl. have or can prove it false The sense in the outward face of the words I call that which a Linguist who knows what words signifie would conceive upon reading without any other revelation from the Holy Ghost But I cannot believe that any Linguist without other revelation than what the bare words hold forth would ever have understood these promises A father of many Nations have I made thee I will be a God to thee and thy seed Thus Gentiles as well as Jews shall believe in Christ I will justifie raise thee up and all that are my Elect or who believe as thou dost to eternal life I grant Chamiers conclusion In this Covenant here is a promise of Heaven and yet deny that the outward face of the covenant Gen. 17. is all Evangelical nor is there a word in Mr. Blakes that proves it Mr. Blake proceeds thus Lastly Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring any thing home were all granted to serve his interest And then sets down what he conceives to be my meaning which he thus opposeth First that orthodox Divines both ancient and modern have made Circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism and till Anabaptists closed they had no Adversaries but Papists who to advance their opus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament will have them as far to exceed the Old as Heaven doth Earth and the substance doth the shadow and then cites a speech of Chamier Panst. Caâ—h tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect 58. and prosecutes his calumnies of my borrowing my weapons I use against infant-baptism from the Jesuits to all which I answer 1. That I grant that Circumcision and Baptism are in part of the same signification and use nor did I ever deny it but in as many and more things they differ which I have shewed Exercit. Sect. 2. Examen part 3. Sect. 9. in this part of the Review Sect. 11. and those disparities I prove out of Scripture and the best learned and approved Protestant Writers Nor do I agree with the Jesuits in holding Baptism to confer grace ex opâ—re operato nor do I undervalue the Covenant with Abraham and his seed as no Gospel-covenant nor do I deny Circumcision to have been the seal of a Gospel-promise As Mr. Blake doth calumniate me and to make odious doth faâ—sly and injuriously suggest I took from the Jesuits But this I confess I hold Exercit. Sect. 1. that there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism in signing the Evangelical Covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I finde not yet invalidated and if they hold the analogy between infant-circumcision and infant-baptism is evacuated there being difference between the covenant made with Abraham and the new covenant though both be in some sort Evangelical and therefore the mixture of the covenant will serve my interest in this point 2. It is false which Mr. Blake saith That my conformity with the Jesuits about the difference between Circumcision and Baptism to maintain the opus operatum of the one to the disparagement of the other as if Baptism exceeded Circumcision as far as the substance the shadow did put me upon it to affirm that what all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable is no undeniable axiome for neither do I conform to Jesuits inâ— that point nor was such conformity any reason of that speech but the words of Mr. M. in his Sermon as the reading of the words of my Examen pag. 113. shew And I say still that speech is a truth and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe onely authentick authority to the holy Scripture Nor is it reasonable to require that I should shew any such errour as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists For 1. it is not possible for me to shew what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists 2. Nor is it necessary to verifie my speech which avoucheth not any such errour in act but onely the possibility of it which is sufficiently made good by pâ—oving them not infallible And to the demand how Popery should be known if that be no Popery which all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists I answer 1. it may be counted Popery and yet perhaps a truth which all Protestant Divines oppose 2. What is Popery which we have engaged our selves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blakes way For 1. it is not possible for any man no not the greatest Reader in Controversies to know what all Protestant Divines defend against Papists 2. If that be the Rule to know Popery by many things will not be taken for Popery which are there being many Tenents which are counted Popery which Protestants Divines and those of good note have not opposed but have granted many things favourably to them as not onely the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers and late Episcopal Protestant do shew which yet I do not approve of I agree with Mr. Blake that there is less likelihood that the truth should be with the Papists than with the Protestants and yet there may be some truth which some Papists may discern which many Protestants do not It is the saying of Doctor Twisse Vind. Grat. lib. 1. part 2. sect 25. digress 8. num 3. But I would not that those things should be rejected of us because the Schoolmen hold them for neither do the Cretians fain all things Augustines judgment was esteemed better than the Pelagians as being the oracle of his time yet he is censured as the hard father of infants for maintaining their damnation if they died unbaptized Calvin was in high esteem as the great Light of the Protestant Churches who have many of them followed him in the point about usury yet the Popish and Prelatical Divines are generally counted by our most zealous Preachers more right in that point than the transmarine Calvinists It is a wicked calumny which Mr. Blake vents whe he saith of me that I 〈◊〉 in upon the party of these sons of Anak meaning the Jesuits Had he any other
made to infer salvation and Zaccheus in that he was the son of Abraham proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree onely to elect persons therefore the term seed of Abraham equipollent to son of Abraham as Evangelically such notes onely elect persons or true believers Piscat Analys Luc. 19.9 Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium schol filius Abrahae nempe filius secundum promissionem id est electus vide Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9 Is the son of Abraham to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely Rom. 9.8 To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham John 8.39 Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life Rom. 8.29 30. 2 Pet. 1.10 Trap com in Luke 19.9 He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected Rom. 9. A follower of Abrahams faith Rom. 4.12 And a doer of his works John 8.39 3. It is said by our Lord Christ John 8.39 If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham he granted them ver 37. To be Abrahams seed by nature but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical because their practise was unlike Abrahams Whence I inferre they Onely Evangellically are Abrahams children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions But such onely are true believers or elect persons therefore true believers or elect persons onely are Abrahams children or seed Evangelical Diodati Annot. on John 8.39 children namely true and lawfull imitators â—f Abrahams faith Father of all believers wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham Rom. 4.16 and 9.6 7. Gal. 3.7 4. With our Lord Christs words accord the words of Paul who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 That God would be the God of Abrahams seed as it was Eavngelical belongs are believers or elect persons and no other Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedfull reader For therein the Apostle doth shew how the promises Gen. 17.7 Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jewes in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers v. 11. And the father of circumcision that is as Beza of the circumcised yet not a father to all of them nor to them onely but to those circumcised ones onely and with them to all other that believe or walk in the steps of that faith which our father of us believing Gentiles Abraham had being yet uncircumcised v. 11.12 Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical onely as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised or uncircumcised then the seed of Abraham are onely believers or elect persons And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace or the righteousness of faith which â—e had uncircumcised to that end that he might be father of uncircumcised believers and in like manner of circumcised to wit who are both sons of the flesh and sons of the faith of Abraham Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised and uncircumcised believers or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised But Abraham is said to be the father of believers in that he is the first eminent example of faith and of righteousness imputed by faith and by his example an Author to all that they may believe Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12 For as speaking of the uncircumcised he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all but of them onely who should believe he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jewes because as I said before it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised but also especially by what reason he is the father of both which is his scope For to be a child of Abraham before God and to be justifyed by faith cohere Again v. 13. shewes the same For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law but through the righteousness of faith I shall use the words of the same Authors Dickson thus paraphraseth v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers onely uncircumcised alike and circumcised and together addes a third argument The promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time and of the world and heaven in truth came not to him by the law or by the condition of works but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith and having the righteousness of faith Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works but they onely who are by faith seeking righteousness by faith that is all and onely believers circumcised alike and uncircumcised to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised The argument is of force for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world nor have righteousness but by faith certainly none are his sons but believers who have righteousness by faith and by righteousness the inheritance Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13 But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised neither to the uncircumcised otherwise not availing unless two things be shewed to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone but with his heirs also and that under the name of his posterity any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood Therefore Paul conjoynes the promises of God made to Abraham as it were into one body and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised or uncircumcised to be Abrahams sons he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world by the term world understanding all Nations and therein following the Lords stâ—ps For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed after he expounded what he understood by the term seed to wit all the nations of the earth when he said that it should be that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace The next v. also confirms it v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect
Church is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision genealogies outward policy national meetings family dwelling c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds Yea say you further it will follow that there may be a vâ—sible Church which consists onely of infants of believers I answer no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church it 's possible but very imâ—roble that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behind them and it 's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites Answer It is somewhat more possible or more probable there should be onely infants left in a Church of a house town or village than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation as the Iewish Church did nor is it unlikely â—uch things hâ—ve happened in sweeping plagues And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites the sâ—me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedobâ—â—pists way in which there is of necessiâ—y so much ignorance in matters of Religion all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares But if it be possible as it is granted that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith contrary ro the definiâ—ion of a visible Church That it is a company of professors of faith and they shal be visible Church-members who neither by themselves or any for them do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense whereby Christianity is expressed The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name Matth. 18.20 But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise as hâ—th been said than the Christian. Next Mr M. against these words of mine It is also true that we are not to account infants of believers which he omits in repetition to belong to God before God which he likewise omits in repetition in respect of election from eternity omitted by him or promise of grace in Christ omitted also of present estate of in-being in Christ or future estate by any act of Science or faith without a particular relation for there is no generall declaration of God that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate excepts two things 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for Answer If that visible Church-membership he pleads for arise from the covenant of grace in Christ as hitherto hath been the plea nor can they shew any other then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it For take away the cause and â—he effect ceaseth and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown sith the cause of it appears not And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith as Mr M. holds in his Sermon pag. 47 in his Defence pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers they are not to be baptized 2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self and dare boldly affirm that by this argument no visible Church or all the visible professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. wâ—thout a paricular revelation because there is no declaration of God that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this For visible professors who are grown men the same will serve for infants of believers Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine By any act or science of faith I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men which I had said of infants But this no whit hurâ—s our Teneâ—t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith to be baptized by us and by an act of science or experience by sense we know them to be such whom we baptize Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science or faith without a particular revelation yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious sober understanding and free professors of Christianity and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples know we ought to baptize them and upon their profession out of charity which believeth all things hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 judge them by an act of opinion elect and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing but suspend our judgmenâ—t and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons against which I excepted in my Examen pag 42 4â— one was That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed Concerning which Mr M. tels me That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be that look as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as they could then and what ever inâ—onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also As for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'l
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
they take them to be the same or heed not what they cite chap. 19. Art 6. True believers are not under the law as a covenant of works not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of works Greater Catech page 25. The regenerate are delivered from the Morall law as a covenant of works Yea Mr M. his words denying the law to be part of the covenant made to Abraham but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ impossible to be kept which are not to be â—rid of the covenant of grace doth in effect make it the covenant of works Mr Anthony Burgess when he distinguisheth vindic legis lect 24. pag. 223 saith the law considered more largly as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it was a covenant of grace but more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness holding forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience abstracted from Moses his administration of it was not of grace but of works In which words he denies not that it held forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience and so it was a Covenant not of grace but of works 2 he shews not that it was given as a Covenant upon any other terms or that it did propound or promise righteousness before God upon condition of faith in Christ but only tels us take the Law for the whole doctrine c. Which is in effect all one as to say The covenant God made was of works yet withal he delivered many things which shewed he would also have them look at Christ which we grant true but no where that he promised righteousness through Christ in that Covenant Mr. Blake Vindic. Faed c 24. pag. 174. the Law is taken sometimes in that strict sense as containing a Covenant of works and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience So Rom. 10.5 6. and 3.21 22. Gal 3.18 It were no hard matter to shew many of Protestant Writers who call the Covenant of the Law at mount Sinai the Covenant of works but these suffice What is objected to the contrary is not from the tenor of the covâ—nant but from some adjuncts of it as 1 because there were sacrafices other rites appointed it must be a Covenant of grace Answer the sacrafices as they were commanded so they did belong to the Covenant of works But as God used them as shadows and types of Christ to come so they signifie Gods purpose oâ— Gospel-grace in Christ but by another Covenant not that at mount Sinai 2 Gods end was not to give life by the Law but to direct to Christ. Answer 1 I grant the first and thence it appears he intended it not for a covenant of grace 2. it directed not to Christ as it was propounded Covenant-wise but by accident in that it made known sin and so made Christ appear necessary and this also proves that it was of it self as propounded a Covenant of workes 3 God could not enter into a Covenant of works with man fallen Answer True so as to justifie him by it yet for other ends he may as to discover sin shew mans impotency As Christ said to the young man Matth. â—9 16. if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though he knew he could not have life that way and v 21. commands him to sel all though it did but shew his covetousness not make him perfect The covenant of grace is to be judged such from the tenor of the promise and condition not from Gods ends For if so then the Gospel it self being sent to some to harden them should be a Covenant of works because the end was to to condemn them by it 4 That God begins the Decalogue with I am the Lord thy God c. Answ 1 He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh Numb 16.22 yet thereby is not proved all are in the Covenant of grace 2 It may be understood that he was their God de jure that he had right to command them because he brough them out of Egypt 3 the plain answer is that he was their God according to the Covenant of grace made with Abraham antecedently to the giving of the Law not by the Covenant of the Law And for that which is often objected that in the second commandement God promised mercy to thousands but he promiseth no mercy but in a Covenant of grace I know how that can be proved I concieve that God did and doth shew temporall mercies out of his long patience by the Covenant of the Law though no man be justified by it before God neither Psal. 105.8 nor any other prove that the Covenant at mount Sinai was the same with that to Abraham though the promise of Canaan was to a 1000 generations yet on condition of obedience Dan. 9.4 Ierem. 11.4 6 7 8. when they brake Gods Laws they were expelled and so when they slew the heir of the Lord of the vicâ—ard he took his kingdome from them and gave it to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it Matth. 21.43 I do not say that a naturall covenant ex natura rei is a covenant of works but it is undoubted that the covenant on mount Sinai was a covenant made with the whole nation of the Jewes and it is proved before to have been a covenant of works It is untruly said That the Gospelâ—covenant Gal. 3.9 was of a national nature For that is a national Covenant which is made with a whole nation that is all the people descended from such a stâ—â—k whereas v. 9. the Apostle by saying so then they that are of the faith of Abraham are blessed with faithful Abraham plainly expounds who he means by all nations v. 8. to wit not whole nations but believers of all nations The Covenant of works at mount Sinai though it did not justifie before God yet it held that nation in Canaan till they set up other Gods and revolted from the true God and upon their forsaking Idols they might plead it for the restoring of them to their own land or continuance in it Yea God did condescend so far that if there had been in Ierusalem a man that had executed judgment and sought truth he would have pardoned it and not brought the Chaldeans upon it to burn it Ierem 5.1 It is true the Gospel threatens and executes corporal punishments and promiseth rewards to the disobeying or obeying of it but not an expulsion out of or setling in any one Country of an entire nation but personal evils or rewards upon personal disobedience or obedience The Covenant of grace admits of no carnal hypocrites nor is it so said Gal 4.21 22 23. though it 's not denied but many who are admitted into the visible Church are such To the eight objection That was in the flesh this in the heart Mr. C. speaks thus Answ. was that only in their flesh was
a Covenant in this latitude and from thence I thus argue If those phrases a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people be applied to Christians as to Jews in an equal latitude to one â—s to other then it must needs follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as in the time of the Law including all that accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear as tâ—e people of God and is not restrained onely to the elect regenerate The consequence is evident seeing the terms plainly imply a Covenant Here is a Covenant people or no where But these terms a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people are applied to Christians as well as to Jews to one in as great a latitude as to the other That which God speaks to Israel in the Wilderness that Peter speaketh to the Church to which he writes All Israelites in Moses days all Christians professing in Peters time had those titles when onely those that kept Covenant were at any time worthy of them and had the comforts of them Answ. The noise I make is not a meer sound without reason nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers To him I reply 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude which comprehends non-elect persons when there is not a word of any Covenant and the terms he onely saith plainly imply a Covenant And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant sith both electiâ—n and generation may be without a Covenant and the like may be said of the other terms a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar or purchased people â—o that in this respect the consequence may be denied Nor is the consequence good for another reason For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles which I find Exod. 19 5 6. yet there onely three of them and those not said of all the Israelites in Mâ—ses days but a promise of being to God such as these titles import upon condition they did hearken to his voice and kept his Covenant which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days nor in after times And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law sith those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time but of them and then onely when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews and assert as in my Postscriâ—t sect 10. pag. 128. that they are applied onely to those who are members of the invisible Church Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me But I would wish Mr. T. to take into more serious consideration First whether the first verse of this second chapter be meant onely of invisible members Whether the Apostle peâ—swades regeneâ—ate men and onely regenerate men to lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and evil speakings Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively that by new born babes v 2 are meant onely members of the invisible Châ—rch for they are said ch 1.23 to be born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father begotten again unto a lively hope ver 3. And to the 2d that he mentions onely regenerate persons whom he perswades though the duty is incumbent on others 2 ly Whether the 3d. v. be to be thus limited Whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner whether they had tasted that the Lord is gracious And yet those words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men and under the same notion as these ver 9. The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice guile c. of whom he makes question whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious they are this chosen generation this royal priesthood Answ. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 2.3 is translated if and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty but it may be as well translated seeing as it is 2 Thes. 1.6 and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is without making question of it And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion and more suitable to the exhortation For it is more agreable to the nature of a motive to the duty ver 2. to conceive it thus Desire the word to grow by it sith or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is 2. But if it were read if yet in such passâ—ges as these if doth not import doubt but onely is as a rational particle noting the connexion between the terms as Joh. 15.18 Ephes. 4.20 21. And so the sense is here If you have tasted which he supposeth not questioneth then you ought to desire the milk of the word that you may grow by it 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is which is not to be conceived considering what he saith of them c. 1. v. 3 23. c. 2.2 5. c. yet this doubt might be of a more full tast which every regenerate elect person might not have 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes v. 2. a chosen generation an holy nation v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints in whom are reliques of corruption and liableness to temptation 3 ly Saith Mr. Bl. Let him seriously consider the Apostles further enlargement of this honour of these Christians which in times past were not a people of God words borrowed from Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes And in Deut. 32.21 of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church state and profession and so applied by the Apostle Rom. 9.24 25 26. Whence I argue The call of the ten revolted Tribes and of the Gentiles into a visible Church way is not to be meant of the Church as it is invisible onely This Mr. T. hath taken into consideration and answered However it be in the pâ—aces to which the allusion is yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light taking it it seems for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches that in the land of Zebulon and Nephthali where they saw
called in one way even servants and all but now God calâ— here one and there one Besides he shews that the Temple Priesthood sacrifices are taken down and therefore the Church constitution This is the very strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say to prove the repeal of Gods merciful Ordinaâ—ce of infants Church membership And I cannot chuse but say They are silly souls and tractable to novelâ—y and easily seduced from the truth of God and far from the stability of judicious tender conscienc't Christians who will be drawn by such misty cloudy arguing without any Scripture proof yea and against so much Scripture Answ. And I cannot chuse but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is disâ—ingenuous and Sopâ—istical in sore â—aâ—ling Readers by such censures which are the mere evaporations of his own ignorancâ— and confidence and I might add arrogance But to the argument I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal or that it is cloudy misty arguing against any Scripture But from it The argument is taâ—en from the notation of the word Church put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 71 8â— that the Greek word for Church is from calling out and that the Church is a peoâ—le or a society of persons called out of the world Whence it follows that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church they that have not an outward call are not of the visible Church But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church 1. by authority 2. of a whole people together 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the onely way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel 2. that this call is of single peâ—sons severed in their habitations relations c. The former is proved by story Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel one by Abraham and that was Gen. 17. perhapâ— there was some other but no other occurs to me and that was according to Gods direction by authority taking in all his house together not by preaching as the Apostles did The other of Moses Exod. 19 c. which was done in like manner The later is proved by institution and practise to be seen in these and many more Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 12 c. Acts 2.41 47. Act. 8.12 c. But of this which is the onely outward churchcal infants are not the subjects therefore neither of visible churchmembership which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by humane generation which it must bee if it bee as the Jewish church-membership was as Joh. 1.13 and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 1.23 It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible is from their different calling They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called they are not of the visible who have not the outward call Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit est vocatio unde etiam nomen suuâ— accipit definitionem Hudson vindic p. 67. exteâ—nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24 cum 10.32 Ames Medul Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6.7 But infants have not the outward call they are not brought into the Church by the word Therefore they are not visible Church-members What saith Mr. B. now 1 You must distinguish between the particular Church of the Jews and the universal visible Church And here I lay down these three proposâ—tions 1. The Jews Church was not the whole universal visible Church that God had then in the world And this he alleageth as my opinion with others and confirms it by sundry arguments Answ. Though the Assembly at Westminster say Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. The visible Church which is also Catholick or universal under the Gospel not confined to one nation as before under the law consists c. yet I agree with Mr. B in his proposition though not in all his proofs For the text Gen. 18.19 proves not the continuance of the Church in any of Abrahams posteriâ—y but those by Isaac nor do the instances of Bethuel Hiram the Ninivites Candace Queen of the Ethiopians evince a Church of God distinct from the Jewish His 2d proposition is if the Jewish Church had been the whole visible Church yet it would have been conâ—â—derable in both respects both as the Jewish Church and as the universal whic◠〈◊〉 pass His third is There is no member of any particular Church who is not also a member of the universal Church Therefore infants were members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Jews particular Church so that if it could be proved that their membership in that particular Church is overthrown yet that is nothing to prove that they have lost their standing in the universal Church But this shall fullier improve and vindicate her after Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular as an excommunicate Apostate c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church if he have no standing therein distinct from that in the particular Church which he hath lost And this was the case of infants they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members as it is and another erected in which they are not reckoned infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members And â—his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this 2. Saâ—th Mr. B. You must distinguish between the essentials and some accidentals of the Jewish Church The Priesthood Temple Sacrifice c. were meerly accidental and might be repealed without the reâ—eal of the essentials or the ordinance establishing the Church it self Answ. I grant the distinction but find it of no use till it be shewed what are the essentials and what not what the ordinance is that established that Church that it is of the essentials of that Church that infants be visible members is of the essentials of that Church which to assert were all one as to say the Jewish Church had been no Church visible without infants which I take to be absurd 3. Saith
of Abraham onely or Moses onely or both or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand I know not except by a call he meaneth circumcising them And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made or entred members 7. And if so whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity or that which was proper to converted proselyted members or some call common to both and what thâ—t was When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered then it may be worth labour to answer him Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise or that a Church could not be without that promise or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan which was as essential to that Covenant as the other they being both but integral parts of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole And for the essence of a Church which consists in the association or union of the members it is not given by a Covenâ—nt of God promising what he will be to them and they to him for the future for that assures them onely of continuance doth not give their present essence but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others and unites or incorporates them together which I call as usually Divines do the Church call agreeably to the Scripture Rom 9.24 25 26. 1 Cor. 1.2 24. c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit and is still the same or outward and was thoâ—gh by various acts of his providence yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith as in the Christian Church when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church But the authority and power of Rulers who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth which was called the congregation or Church of Israel in which the infants were included and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning by my instances which he sets down that the way means or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish For the Christian Church outward call was onely according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ and not by any coercive power of Rulers whereas the Jewish was otherwise Mr. B. proceeds In the mean time briefly thus I answer 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased and so are the ceremonies built thereon 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people If they heartily consent it may be done onely the World is taken into this Covenant with them and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded that exclude not themselves 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease when yet the Church ceased not 4. And for the Ministerial call 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed yet the effect ceased not Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call then what sort is that And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches this is that he drives at God then called by Magistrates but now by Ministers And secondly then he called all the Nation in one day but now he calls heâ—e one and there one Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive that Mr. B. might have understood or rather did understand me well enough that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call which he could learn by my speeches that drive at it But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding what he could not well answer he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain But for what he saiâ—h that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people he therein shews two mistakes 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant as if God could not make a Covenant without it which is false the Covenant Gen. 9.9 10. with Phinehas Numb 25.12 13. with the Rechabites Jer. â—5 19 being without it 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers which implies either the Covenant to be all onâ— with an offer or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent as Mr. B. means But Mr. B. proceeds thus Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words 1. What if all this were true is there the least colour for the consequence from hence It is as good a consequence to say That when God judged Israel by Debora a woman which before was judged by men that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered Oâ— when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer and then another first a man and then a child and then a woman doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered If first a man and then a child and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner or to any imployment or company doth this change the nature of the company or imployment What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministery and a Presbytery another and the people a third is not the Ministerial work and office still the same What if a Magistrate convert one man now and a Minister another and a woman a third doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the
is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews They are put out of the carnal Churchstate too But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership by faith and as a mercy to the catholick Church For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances which infants are partakers of in actual possession and capable of the spirit though they be not actually visible churchmembers and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual church-state And Mr. B. doth much mistake as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church yet none of them were given of it in Christs time they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peoâ—le a generation of vipers denied the holy one and the just and desired a murtherer made the temple a den of theeves c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs As for the Jews who believed not they were justly put out of Gods favour their temple was destroyed and they cast out of their land for denying Christ Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually for they adhere to it unto this day and it is their curse 4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18 where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh in contradistinctâ—on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 From Rom. 2.28 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly of Circumcision which is outward in the flesh from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter From Gal. 4.25 26 23 29. where Hierusalem that then was is contradistingued to Hierusalem above and the former is in bondage with her children the later free the children of the former born after the flesh the later after the spirit From Gal. 3.3 where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh From Ephes. 2.11 where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands From Philip. 3.3 4 5. where Hebrew discent and churchmembership thereby are termed the flesh From Heb. 9.10 where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof But he further demands Or what doth he mean by churchstate whether the essential nature of the Church it self or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it Is not this word churchstate like his former of church call devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities and signifying what pleaseth the speaker Answ. Neither the term Church state nor Church call were devised by me but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines I have shewed the use of the later before and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it and that according to Mr. B. himself And for the former me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher intituled De visibilis Ecclesiae successient statu And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it and if it signifie what pleases the speaker it is so much the better for that is the use of words and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities if it signifie for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light and not darken with ambiguities So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation that his later words cross his former And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying numerous or small rich in knowledge or poor carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith more or less of the spirit the promises ministery rites c. it hath Which term state comprehends innumerable terms such as are rich and poor noble or ignoble fat or lean and many more which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality relation or passion or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions which he must not expect I will answer as I have done after this bout 5. Saith he And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause when themselves give us but their magisteâ—ial dictates But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream What are infants such â—â—ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out Are not the aged worse then they And were we not once all infants Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church and so need not prove it nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer but for Mr. B. to disprove it Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down not without some proof from Scripture and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions and vain exclamations which I resolve to neglect And of the former sort are the questions here which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members because they are Toads Vipers worse then the aged whereas I onely say that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers and no otherwise was in mercy to the catholick Church Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle
Book of Baptism in this Review Part. 1. Sect. 6 7 8 9. I think it not needful as yet to make reply to the exceptions against my answers and therefore go on to answer Mr. Bs. 12th Chapt. which begins thus My 7th Arg. shall be drawn from Matth. 23.37 38 39. From whence I argue thus If Christ were so tender over Jerusalem that he would have gathered them as a Hen gathereth her Chickens then surely he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church or repealed the merciful gift and ordinance of their Churchmembership But Christ was so tender of them that he would have so gathered Jerusalem c. Therefore sure hee would not have unchurched their infants The antecedent is the words of the Lord Jesus The reason and strength of the consequence lieth here 1. It is not some particular Jews that Christ would have gathered to himself and so into his Church as accomplished with higher priviledges then before but it was Jerusalem whole Jerusalem which is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish Nation now if Jerusalem were gathered then infants must needs be gathered I know nothing of any moment that can be said against this but leave it to any tender conscience to judge whether it be likely that Christ should have unchurched all their infants when he would have gathered to himself the whole nation or whole Jerusalem If that contemptible answer should here bee again returned that Christ would have gathered them onely into the invisible Church I have answered it before they that are visibly or apparently gathered into the invisible Church are gathered also thereby into the visible And if all Jerusalem had been gathered it had been doubtless a visible gathering O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted truths as I see in these words of the Lord Jesus to convince me that hee would have gathered all Jerusalem into his visible Church and consâ—quently not have unchurched all their infants I should tremble to think of resisting so plain testimonies of God If Christs own words will not serve I know not what will If any say that by Jerusalem is meant onely the aged of Jerusalem I answer It is vain to call for Scripture if they dare contradict it at pleasure or so make it speak onely what they list It is not fully a nation or City without the infants Besides Jerusalem had inchurched infants when Christ so spake therefore how could his words be otherwise understood by them unless hee had excepted infants 2. Yet further Christ doth not in vain use the similitude of a Hen gathering her Chickens The Hen gathereth the youngest most tenderly Yea how long will she sit the very Egs Now who dare expound thiâ— thus As a Hen gathereth her young ones under her wings so I would have gathered the aged of you but none of your young ones visibly 3. And doth not their leaving of their house desolate mean the Temple and so the unchurching them till they say Blessed iâ— hee that commeth in the Name of the Lord and â—heâ— Jerusalem and therefore infants shall bee inchurched again So CHRIST JESUS himself hath made me believe that he would have gathered all Jerusalem but unchurched none of them Answ. It is not CHRIST JESUS but Mr. Bs. own shallâ—wness or prejudice that makes him believe that here is aâ—y thing for infants visible Churchmembership That Jerusalem is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish nation is more then I finde But that by Jerusalem and her children are not meant infants is apparent from the text 1. They are meant by Jerusalem who killed and stoned them that were sent but they were not infants Ergo. 2. Becauâ—e the way whereby Christ would have gathered Jerusalem was by preaching the Gospel to them as is manifest 1. in that hee used no other way 2. This was the way which he often attempted which is implied in the phrase how often would I 3. This is the way they refused implied in the phrase and ye would not that is yee would not obey my admonitions of repentance nor believe the Gospel and so Piscator annal loci saepissimè benignissimè à me admoniti non tamen obtemporare voluistis 4. From vers 34.35 where the way by which hee would have gathered them seems to bee by sending Prophets and Wise men and Scribes or Apostles Luk. 11.49 to them which were not sent to infants How oft would I have gâ—thered That is say some by the external ministery of the Prophets sent unto thee vers 34 35. Trapâ— on Matth. 23.37 5. The often attempt of gathering here is the same with the visitation or over sight Luke 19.44 as the agreement of the expressions and matter in both places compared eâ—idently shews now that was by teaching Luke 1.78 79. And thus the New Annot. Of thy visitation as if he had said in thy visitation in which God manifested himself in my person offering thee mercy 6. Thus Protestant Divines often expound it answering Arminians and others inferring hence resistability of converting grace by mans freeâ—will as Diodati in his annot on Matth. 23.37 expresseth their minde Wee must of necessity understand this to bee meant of the dispensation of outward means by the word exhortations commandments c. Now it cannot be said that Christ would have this way gathered the infants of Jerusalem for hee had said he often by his own and Prophets and Apostles preaching would or attempted to do it But this he would nor nor attempted to do to infants Ergo they are not meant under the term Jerusalem 3. This is proved also from the end of his gathering which was that they might bee his Disciples but hee never would or did gather any infants to him as his Disciples Ergo. 4. It is proved also thus Those onely are meant by Jerusalem whom Christ would have gathered but they would not But this cannot be said of infants that they would not there was no nilling of Conversion in them Ergo. 5. They are meaâ—t by Jerusalem who are meant by the City Luk. 19.41 and there they are meant who v. 42. might have known in that their day the things belonging to their peace but then they were hid from their eyes Who knew not the time of their visitation v. 44. But this is not meant of infants Ergo. In answer therefore to Mr. Bs. argument altering the termes put out unchurch which my doctrine doth not assert into repeal the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership or leave out of his visible Church I deny the consequence of his major and deny that which he alledgeth for proof of it that by Jerusalem is meanâ— all the people of Jerusalem even the infants And to his wish I return a wish O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted truâ—hs as I see in these words to convince me that Christ means noâ— infants by those he would have gathered unto
should rather think that the Text by him produced proves without any contradiction that the Covenant made Abraham the father of believers he is the called three Father of us all and a Text quoted for it which is Gen. 17.5 A Father of many nations I have made thee And whether that be not by vertue of Covenant let the context be consulted together with the Apostles words Rom. 4.11 He closed with God in Covenant and accepted the seal of the Covenant that according to Covenant he might be the Father of all them that believe Answ. 1. If Abel Enoch Noah be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying Heb. 11.4 5 6 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith then it is not true which Mr. Bl. â—aith a little before that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed onely in that which is external 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham and they are examples to us Pleb 6.12 Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abrahams and therefore none denoâ—inated the Fatâ—er of believers besides him 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abrahams faith and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made onely his eminent faith and the form denominating him is 〈◊〉 relation to them the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily 4. Rom. 4.11 It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant or of the seal of the Covenant but â— 16 the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all v. 17 18 19 20 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent and that as the reason of his Fatherhood Mr. Bl. to what I said the fatness of the Olive tree Diodati said truly is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed and so the Apostle expresseth Gal. 3.14 saith This we grant and priviledge of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation To which I reply The blessing Gal. 3.14 is jâ—stification v. 8 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith which a man may be without though he have the outward â—riviledge of ordinances and therefore are not contained in it Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith and therefore if the ingraffing be onely into the visible Church and a person have onely the priviledge of ordinances he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed Gal. 3.14 which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 and therefore the fatness is more then outward priviledges and ordinances and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17 But he argues thus That wherein the Jews exceeded the Gentiles is the fatness whereof the Gentiles partake when they are ingraffed instead of the Jews this none can deny for this makes them their equals and co partners But it is priviledges of ordinances how frigid and washy things soever Mr. T. little better then profanely makes it is the priviledge wherein Jews exceeded Gentiles Rom. 3.1 Deut. â— 7 8. Psal. 147.19 20. Therefore this is the fatness of the Olive Answ. The major is not true if universal and Mr. Bls. reason proves it For the Gentiles when ingraffed were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles All those things mentioned Rom 9.4 5. were prerogatives of the Jewes never imparted to the Gentile believers yea that priviledge mentioned Rom. 3.1 the committing the Oracles of God the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles nor the Tables of the Covenant and the Book of the Law to be kept as hee did to the Jews But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners was justification by faith and union with Christ by his spirit as Ephes. 3.6 Gal. 3.28 29 c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles ingraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 But this is not the priviledges of Ordinances but justification and oneness in Christ ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 To what I said that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews they being takâ— away hee saith if that of the Apostle bee true that the Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 then this cannot bee false If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness bee the same as that on which wâ— seed 1 Cor. 10.2 the outward priviledges of that people may well the 〈◊〉 the same with ours Answ. 1. If the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews be the same with ours then not onely the preaching the Gospel but also Circumcision the Passeover the Temple High Priest sacrifices c. must be the same to us as to them 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them yet not in the same manner it was preached to them â—s future to us as accomplished nor by the same ordinances not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb the High Priests going into the most Holy place with bloud once a year c. 3. Noâ— is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed 1 Cor. 10.3 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meate and drinke was signified by the Manna they ate and the water out of the Rocke which they dranke which is signified by the Bread and Wine wee receive in the Lords Supper But this doth not shew the same outward priviledges of the Jewes and us but the same spirituall benefits signified to them which are to us He next tels me I have taken pains for my own full refutation for if Abraham be the root then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off which he endeavours to prove from Rom. 9.2 3. 11.1 14. though the conclusion be not denied but oft asserted by me and then brings in Paul thus disputing Pauls kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible not invisible But Pauls kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off Ergo the Church visible not invisible was cut off Which conclusion doth not contradict any thing I assert who never made the Church invisible cut off but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was
be baptizable That the Covenant Deut. 29.14 15. should â—e made virtually radically with us Gentiles is a doâ—age with a witness not onely the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses not the Covenant made to Adam Abraham David the New or better Covenant If the Covenant may stand in one then it is not necessary that a people nation seed body should be in covenant and consequently it may stand without infants The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16 the Fathers were the root But Mr. Rutherfurd adds Hence Anabaptists without all reason say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness but of real internal and true holiness onely of the invisible body predestinated to life for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were without doubt a part of the rooâ— Answ. Anabaptists if we must be so named do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16 is meant of real internal and true holiness and consequently the persons there said to be holy are all of the invisible body predestinated to life and no other but such there meant yet they deny not that the holiness of the Covenant and Church theâ—e meant were made visible by its working the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life and that it is not said without all reason might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd if he had read my Examen part 3 sect 7. my Apol. sect 14. pag. 67. Review part 1. sect 1 c. part 3. sect 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds that invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were withoue doubt part of the root that which Anabaptists say is not said without reason and that demonstrative For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded then it is included and if included together with external visible holiness then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy and consequently no reprobate but onely the predestinate to life And if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be part of the root and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy must have invisible holiness also But Mr. Rutherfurd ads Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church as made visible and of the visible collective body of the Jews not of onely real and invisible holiness 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias If the root be holy the branches are holy And it is a New Testament-truth of perpetual verity If the Fathers be holy so must the sons The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Supper so have the children but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onely and of real and internal holiness For neither in Old or New Testament is it true if the Fathers be predestinated to life justified and sanctified and saved so must the children be Answ. The term holy Rom. 11.16 notes onely real and invisible holiness in that place though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary If the Fathers be holy so must the sons is most false not onely being understood of invisible but also of visible holiness of Churchright to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Suppâ—r Though the father were holy visibly by profession of the God of Israel yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision and the Passeover without being a Proselyte of righteousness taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe and joyning to the policy of Israel and yet even then the child of age who did not avouch the God of Israel had no right thereto Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bapâ—ism or the Lords Supper without his own profession though the parentâ— be Christians nor the infant of a believer baptized as they conceive right to the Lords Supper Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root meâ—nâ— Rom. 1.16 and every natural child a branch For then every believing parent should beare his child v. 18. and every natural child shouâ—d derive holiness from his believing parent Abrahams naturâ—l children at this day are not in the Olive nor shall be till re-ingraffed Abraham is the root not as a natural father but as Father of believers and â—one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means but through â—aith according to election Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward child of the flesh and promise taken away nor whole Israel certainly saved Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong which â—e miâ—ht have imagined would be replied to hiâ— argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity but old That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith which may be discerned by their profession in those that are come to age It is neither my Divinitâ— nor follows though Mr. Rutherfurd câ—nceives it doth on it that predestination to life and glory must bee proâ—ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits he meant from the first fruits to the luâ—p from the root and parents to the branches and children But this I say that faith and righteousness are propagated and derived from â—braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him I do not say that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body but this I say the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people the one Jews who were then broken off from the Olive tree which is the invisible Church of the elect the other Gentiles then graffed in yet not all the Gentiles nor one nation wholly and entirely but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away were preached to had a national election and external calling were in the room of the Jewes â—id partake of the fatness of the Olive is so fully opened in the places before cited that I think it unnecessary to add here any more Onely whereas he makes it an absurdity that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ— Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whâ—n I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâ—ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which â—ate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inâ—â—pid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism â—is most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâ—e a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châ—ef article was that they should shake off every yoâ—e and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâ—e playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâ—h That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied
Proselyte are perfectly all one and yet acknowledge this accidental difference that this is no reason of difference and yet say that a Proselyte denotes a comming from some other nation as a disciple doth not that this is but an accidental difference and yet in his own description make this very difference and when he expresseth the Hebrew word for Proselyte still terms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stranger that this difference had no place in this matter when his inference is from Proselytes who were strangers to the Jews to prove Disciples and Proselytes the same and to tell me I must know his use of a word which hee neither shews that he or any else have so used But the Dr. adds Thus do we finde a Proselyte defined Heb. 11.6 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that commeth to God thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole Law of the Jewes and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Proselyte of the Covenant and a Proselyte of their righteousness and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile that commeth to Christ and as the two former of these were made partakers of priviledges by this means particularly allowed freely to enter into the Congregation and infants as well as grown men were thus among them admitted into Covenant so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian Proselytes also nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile infants were among the ancient people of God i. e. by Baptism should not as properly bee called Proselytes of Christ though they neither câ—me from any other nation nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh Answ. If the notion of a Proselyte were according to Heb. 11.6 I should agree that a disciple of Christ and a Proselyte were the same For such a Proselyte is one that is a believer as the words shew But without faith it is impossible to please God For he that commeth to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him All such Proselytes of Christ I doubt not are admitted into Covenant to be bâ—ptized to partake of priviledges in the Christian Church whether they be Jewes or Gentiles according to that 1 Cor. 12.13 and when infants are proved to be such there will be no question about their Baptism though not by reason of the Jewish custome yet by vertue of Christs institution to baptize disciples and believers on him But that infants of Christians are thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile infants were among the ancient people of God i. e. by Baptism or that afore they believe they should be called Proselytes of Christ or that every one whether Jew or Gentile that commeth to Christ is as a Gentile when hee undertook the whole Law of the Jewes and was therefore a proselyte of their Covenant and a proselyte of their righteousness or that a Christian believer is either termed in Scripture a Proselyte or any Jew is to be so termed properly is not to be imagined all these things being the meer dreams of the Dr. suitable to his fancy of infant Baptism instituted among Christians aâ—ter the Jewish pattern The Dr. proceeds thus And whereas he saith of the Proselytes comming to the Israelites that they came not to be taught but to enjoy priviledges I cannot divine what motive he had to affirm it for sure the infant child that was baptized and so received into the Congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion into which he was thus early initiated and that was one special priviledge the rest of the Heathen having not knowledge of these Lawes the immediate end of his proselytism yet not excluding those other ends of injoying all other priviledges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby Answ. The infant had no end but such as the parent who was indeed the Proselyte had and the parents end was not to be taught for hee was taught the Jewish religion before and at his Baptism the precepts of Moses being recited to him while he stood in the water by the Elders at whose command he was baptized and admitted into the Jewish policy afore which admission he was to undertake the observance of them the proper and immediate end of his proselytism was his injoying those priviledges which native Jewes had as one of that body which shews that the admission of a Proselyte was not into a school to learn and therefore the notion of Proselytism not like the notion of receiving to discipleship which the Dr. fancies to be meant Matth. 28.19 and to be the same with admission to Proselytism to shew the mistake of which was the motive why I set this difference between a Proselyte and a Disciple of Christ as the Dr. might easily have diâ—ined if hee had been minded to do so The Dr. saith of me And when he adds but a Disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benefits I might as well acknowledge it and ask why then an infant who hath need of those spiritual benefits as soon as he is born should not be hastened to a participation of them Answ. I know no reason why hee should not nor do I know any reason why he should be baptized nor how by it an infant may be hastened to the participation of spiritual or other benefits but know reason why an infant should not bee baptized because Baptism is thereby profaned and the infant afterwards usually hardened through pernicione presumption as if he were thereby made a Christian. The Dr. saith also But it is farther evident that spiritual benefits beeing first and principally designed other even secular advantages may very lawfully bee respected and reaped by them that are thus early brought in whether as Disciples or Proselytes to Christ. Answ. That by Baptism infants are brought in as Disciples or Proselytes to Christ or attain any advantages spiritual or secular I know not sure I am none are lawfully respected in the use of infant Baptism being wholly besides Christs minde and if the end of Proselytism was as manifestly it was for far different purposes from that of a Disciple of Christ the Proselyte and Disciple of Christ are not perfectly one which I was to demonstrate Yet again saith the Dr. Two sage observations he here addeth 1 That there is no mention of the Disciples of the Priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces and I can verily well grant it who speak not of any lower kinde of Disciples but either of God among the Jewes or of Christ among us Christians those being the onely Discipleship to which they were admitted by the Ceremony of Baptism the Disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a
under the stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that bâ—lieve and are bapâ—ized so even now we had it in the express words of Christ the little ones and S. Luke specifies them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little infants that believe on him i. e. just as they are said elsewhere to come unto him when they are as uncapable for want of bodily strength of personal comming as for want of strength of mind or judgement of personal believing and yet in respect of others bringing them to Christ and so to the Church in baptism they are by Christ himself said to do both of these to come in one place and to believe in the other Answ. Comming imports onely a local motion to a place or person and may be by either a persons or things motion from an inward or outward principle in elder or younger persons he that is carried in a coach or on horseback or by barge is said to come to London or home as well as he that goes on foot but believing is an immanent act which neither is noâ— can be anoâ—hers aâ—t then the persons nor by any others motion then his own nor from any other principle without his own understanding No where are infants in age termed believers one of these little ones Matth. 18.6 cannot be meant of little ones in age for it supposeth then more liâ—tle ones in age then present whereas there was bâ—t one present v. 2. and then it would be a very great sin to offend a little one in age but the woâ—ds following v. 10 14. shew the term little ones to be meant of those Christians who were apt to be despised and liable to going astray But if infants were meant Matth. 18.6 yet it is false which the Dr. saith That he might safely avouch that infants may be comprehended under the stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that believe and are baptized for it followes in the Drs. own words But then 3dly I willingly acknowledge that the word believe in Mark belongs peculiarly to the grown men and women who are called by the preaching of the Gospel of whom though it bee said that believing and being baptized they shall be saved and not believing they shall be damned yet it no way followes that none but such as thus personally believed should be baptized or that being baptized they should not be saved but lose all the benefit of their Baptism So that the Dr. yeilding that Mark 16.16 is meant of grown persons peculiarly he could not safely avouch unless an untruth might be safely avouched that infants may be comprehended under the stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that believe and are baptized which is onely Mark 16.16 and then it follows hence that none are to be counted disciples but believers nor any to be baptized but such The benefit of Bapâ—ism to infants I think is none sure not salvation without faith in act or seed or something equivolent It followes in the Dr. The latter part of the words is considerable He that believeth not shall be damned infidelity is pitcht on as the thing peculiarly that incurs the certain damnation i. e. the voluntary resisting the faith when it is preached convincingly to them and of that none are capable but those that are arrived to years of understanding which as it is an indication that that v and those that follow in S. Mark of believers casting out devils c. v. 17 18. belong to adulti peculiarly so it no way hinders but S. Matthews words being different from them and supposed to be precedent to them in Christs delivery may comprehend infants also as such who are capable of eâ—tring into discipleship and of being brought and presented to the Apostles by believing paâ—ents This being the way whereby the faith of the parents may be signally beneficial to the child in bringing him thus early into the School and so to the benediction of Christ the parents together with the infant children as among the Jewes so among Christianâ— entring together into Covenant with God Answ. I did ever conceive and so do others and me thinks the Dr. should conceive so too that the commission Mark 16.15 16. is the same though with some variation of words but not of matter with that Matth. 28.19 and if so the Dr. hath granted and proved enough here to shew that believers Mark 16.16 are onely adulti capable of understanding and so none other disciples to be baptized Matth. 28.19 which is that I was to prove and need therefore adde no more to refute his stale crambe of his Jewish pâ—ttern but shall consider what he saith for his position of making disciples without precedent instruction Dr. Hammond Defence of infants baptism ch â— sect 2. p. 41. writes thus I say that the making or receiving disciples supposeth not any precedent instruction but looks wholly on it as subsequent This â— there concluded not from the bare negative because there was no precedent mention of such instruction where discipling and baptizing were both mentioned but because in that place on which the Antipaedobaptist so much relies Matth. 28 19.â— the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching is expresly mentioned after discipling and baptizing and so is in reason to be deemed and lookt on as subsequent to both and so the receiving ad discipulatum refer to that then future instruction p. 49. In this matter Mr. T. is willing to finde a difference betwixt teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded them Matth. 28.20 and the preaching of the Gospel in S. Mark thinking by that means to avoid the importunity of that text in Matthew which evidently sets baptism before instructing But this can avail him nothing For if by the Gospel in Mark we understand the whole Gospel as in reason we must for that is â—t which must be preacht to every creature the Gentile world then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded But if by preaching the Gospel we mean no more then as Mr. T. here saith that Jesus is the Christ i. e. the proposing him as a Master and calling all to come to him as disciples then this being supposed precedent to mens comming to discipleship or bringing their infants to it for without this they cannot be expected to come themselves or to bring their infants all the â—est is left to follow baptism and so all particular Christian instruction is subsequent not precedent to baptism an effect of their discipleship attending it no way necessary to prepare for it which is the uâ—most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which from that circumstance of that text I undertook to demonstrate Answ. That the Dr. saith not true in this is manifest from his words which were not 〈◊〉 here that all particular Christian instruction besides the proposing Christ as a master and calling all to come to him as disciples is subsequent but this letter of resol q. 4. § 25. having
said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not duly exprest by our English teach but make disciples or receive into discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name c. making this form of Baptism their ceremony of receiving them He adds where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving disciples and the receiving dâ—sciples not supposing any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent all that are thus brought and received ad discipulatum to be for the future instructed and instituted in the Christian faith may surely bee received by baptism the ceremoâ—y which is there prescribed by Christ with which to receive disciâ—les From which words it is evident he made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without teaching to import the receiving of disciples even infants brought by others and not onely all particular Christian instruction subseâ—uent to baptism but even instruction and institution in the Christian faith and the receiving disciples supposing not any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent which if he now retract and acknowledge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports more then bare admission of disciples and includes preaching of the Gospel that Jesus is the Christ i. e. proposing him as a master and calling all to come to him as disciples and this precedent to baptism then is some instruction in the faith necessarily precedent and teaching by thus preaching the Gospel included in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples and none appointed to be baptized but they that are thus made disciples and so no infants and thus it will avail me something which I noted As for what he saith that in reason we must understand Mark 16.15 the whole Gospel and that then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded Neither is it true that in reason we must understand the whole Gospel but so much at least as thâ— Apostles were wont to preach to persons afore they baptized them for they best understood Christs Commission Mark 16.15 which may be seen in these and such like places Acts 2.36 c. 8.12 35 37. 10.36 c. 16.31 32. 17.18 c 18.5 1 Cor. 15.3 4 c. Nor if it were true doth it follow that then that is directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever hee hath commanded For 1. I no where finde agenda things to be observed by us termed the Gospel but credenda things to be believed Rom. 1.16 17. 2.16 1 Cor. 15.3 4. Gal 3.8 2 Tim. 2.8 and accordingly no where is the Goâ—pel propounded in the imperative as a thing to be done by us but in the indicative mood as a thing to be believed and accordingly wee are commanded Mark 1.15 to believe the Gospel and thus it is meant Mark 16.15 For after it is appointed to the Apostles to preach the Gospel it is presently addeâ— v. 16. Hee that believeth to wit the Gospel preached and is baptized shall be saved 2. If it were so that the â—ospel did contain agenda commands to be observed by us yet to preach the Gospel could not be directly all one with teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded for Baptism is a command of Christ yet is not any part of the subsequent instruction after baptism which is meant by Christ in those words and yet if any is to be accounted part of the Gospel So that it is evident that the distinction I made between teaching the Gospel and other commands was right and that the Dr. by making all the â—eaching Matth. 28 19 subsequent to Baptism hath perverted the order of Christ and abused the text for the countenance of his errour of infant Baptism's consistency with Christs appointment Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. The Dr. adds p. 41. And to this sense I there made it manifest that the definition of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 did refer that Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeking to God as to the Oracle to enquire for the whole future life no way pre requiring actual instruction but comming to Christ and the Church to receive it and obey it for the future and that done in some sort by those that â—re brought when they are not able to come and by the charity of the â—hurch received there Answ. There is neither a definitâ—on of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 nor any thing like it nor doth the drift of the speech lead to such a conceiâ— That it is not a definition of Baptism may appear by the properties of a definitiâ—n for a definition sets down what a thing is and is reciprocal with the thing defined but the genus of Baptism cannot bee answer or interrogation or stipulation Baptism actively taken being an act of hands passively of the whole body answer interrogation or stipulation if by words of the tongue if of the conscience of the minde nor any difference fâ—om prayer or vow or such like act Nor is there any thiâ—g like it there being no expression of the nature oâ— baptism in the Church but the use before God nor is the intent to shew what Baptism is in it self but when it saâ—es and the speech is a comparative expression like that in the same Chapter v. 3 4. Matth. 12.7 and other the like in which the meaning is that baptism saves not when there is onely a putting away of the filthiness of the flesh but whâ—n there is with it also the answer interrogation or stipulation of a good conscience towards God so that the predication is not formal but connexâ—ve not shewing what iâ— is but what it is accompanied with when it saves Nor is the Drs. sense true For such seeking to God as he speaks of by baptism when a child is brought by others to learn and by the Churches charity received doth not save as the answer of a good conscience towards God is said to do nor is the answer interrogation or stipulation of a good conscience towards God without actual instruction there is no man that makes an answer or promises or makes an interrogation without some preâ—edent instruction whose act soever it bee there must bee some knowledge of God and Christ afore there is seeking or enquiry and address to him nor is there any intimation of any ones bringing and the Church receiving nor any propounding any qâ—estion to lâ—arn but if the allusion be to the use of the old questions and answers abrenuncias abrenuncio Credis credo Spondes spondeo as Beza annot in locum and others conceive Or the term note an answer or stipulation as Beza or interrogation as the Vulgar â—atiâ— or confession as the Syriack or examination and proving which as Heinsius Exercit. in locum conceives is intimated as pre-requisite to baptism as well as the Lords Supper it is evidently another thing then Dr. Hammonds tendring a child or a mans own offer of himself to be entred into a school that he might learn It