studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
deserved not an answer Ch. 19. he saith thus My 14 th arg is this If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law nor yet of the law of works then it is not repealed But it was no part of the ceremonial law nor meerly judicial nor part of the law of works as such therefore it is not repealed The consequence is evident seeing no other laws are repealed The antecedent I prove in its parts 1. None will say it was part of the law of works for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended But churchmembership was a mercy Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all which he hath not proved yet distinct from the law of Circumcision and this is my answer to this argument that there is no such law at all and this is enough Yet I add 2. If his preâ—ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works then it is not of the law of nature which before and after he asserts for the law and Covenant of nature is the law and Covenant of works which I think Mr. B. wil not deny surely it is not of grace in Christ Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall but such is the law of nature Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended is a dictate of Divines which needs proof That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works is proved before sect 43. But that yeelded some mercy Levit. 4.2 20 26 31 35. Numb 15.22 23 24 28. Ergo. 4. How far and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy and how it is otherwise now is shewed before sect 64 66. 2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law then 1. let them shew what it was a type of and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it to be so if they can Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremonial nor every ceremonial thing to be typical Or if it be so yet I am sure of every thing ceremonial which was typical Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular at least he cannot prove it When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes bowls snuffers and other utensils about the tabernacle and of every thing appointed concerning them their colour fashion mettal c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task But till then it is enough to tell him that to it with other things typified Christ Col. 2.17 succeeded The churchmembership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough let Mr. B. answer and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants pag. 112.113 114 115 116 c. 2. Saith he If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony then the Church it self should be but a ceremony And so the Church in Abrahamâ— family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah Melchizedech Sem Job Lot c. which were more then ceremonies Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial and yet not the materials that is the men a ceremony so churchmembership might be a ceremony yet not the churchmembers But I do not term either the one or the other a ceâ—emony it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered 3. Saith he And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law appears thus 1. As was last said then also the Church in Abrahams family should be more vile then the aforesaid for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy as we call the judicials Answ. Iâ— it weâ—e by any law that infants were Churchmembers it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the â—hree sorts of the Mosaical laws which Divines do so distinguish And to the argument I say 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family it is not made a piece of meer civil policy not Ecclâ—siastical for the Jewâ— Commonwealth was a holy policy and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer judicial laws as the constitution of the Sanhedâ—in and other things are and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah c. we cannot resolve sith we find little or nothing of them no mention of Noahs infants or Melchizedecs Sems Jobs or Lots except Ammâ—n and Moab nothing said of their Churchmembership or of the government of the families what it was or by what law 2. Saith he It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial upon which meer judicials are built why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial Answ. It can be shewn that if there be such a law it is a meer judicial law because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel as it is termed Ephes. 2.12 and the entring of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people and not by the priests And this we daâ—e say of the womens visible Churchmembership as well as the infants and that neither of them were by a moral law oâ— Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies 3. Saiâ—h he It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects And Mr. T. hath told me his judgement that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers I thinke this is past denial Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature no nor of the law of nations if they were all other government then of Kings were against these laws much less can it be oâ— the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects According to my judgment the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally but by institution and therefore according to my grounds it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers So that I find none oâ— these things past denial 4. Saith he The promise that took them in and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of â—aith as is proved before therefore not a meer judicial Answ. Neither were they
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
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
may make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christs towards the Hebrews one fact of making the Jews his people and assign it to this office rightly onely using the word fact or making as it comprehends not onely the beginning and increasing and compleating of that people but also the continuation recovery from captivity and preservation of that people 11. Saith Mr. B. You say that you call this fact transeunt because it's past and so till it 's past it seems Isaac and Jacob that were dead before are no Churchmembers I would then fain know whether it be this same transeunt fact or some other that makes infants Churchmembers five hundred years after it is past If it be this same then how comes a meer transeunt fact to work effectually so many hundred years after it is past unless it made a Law or Covenant which doth the deed If it be a new transeunt fact that must make infants Churchmembers after the compleating of this the setling their inheritances then I pray you let me know whether it be one fact exercised on the whole nation in gross or must it be a fact upon every infant member individually If on the nation remember to tell us what it was and do not onely tell us the cause of the membership of former infants And seeing it must be such as the membership of every infant till Christs time at least must be caused by I pray you remember to make your work sâ—uare and full and be sure to assign us no other kind of fact then what you will prove to have been so frequently repeated in every age and so fully extensive to every infant among the Jews as that it have no gaps but may make all members that were so in each age And remember that it is no law precept promise or covenant that you must assign for the cause for that 's it you are engaged against but a constant succession of transeunt facts extending to each individual member O what work have you made your self and what a sort of new political Doctrine shall we have from you when these things are accomplished according to the frame you have begun Such as I believe the Sun never saw nor the wisest Lawyer in England ever read before Which makes me the less marvel that so many of your opinion are so mâ—ch against the Lawyers for I dare say they will be but few of them for you if these be your grounds or at least not for these your grounds Answ. I call the whole transeunt fact past because it consists of many transeunt acts which are past being done But I do not limit the being of Churchmembers to the entire transeunt fact as if none were Churchmembers till each act was past which I set down but the accomplishing or compleating the Congregation of Israel to either all or the chief of the later acts That which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmembers was the transeunt fact or acts of Gods providence in their age whereby they became to be part of Abrahams house which God by his call of Abram setting up his worship in it and other ways had made his Church The same transeunt fact in kind though not individual which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmembers in their age made infants visible Churchmembers in the several ages till Christs time to wit the continuance of the Jews to be Gods people in the continuing his ordinances laws worship c. among them And each infant was made a visible Churchmember by such transeunt fact in each age renewed and repeated by which the infant was made and known to be a part of that people which what it is hath been often before said and shewed not to be by such Covenant and precept as Mr. B. asserts All which was plainly expressed in my Letter and is such work as I need not be ashamed of without any new political Doctrine or Law as Mr. B. imagines it being cleared by the History of the Bible and other Histories which set down this fact of God And if Mr. B. or any Lawyer gainsay this they gainsay the plain narration of the Bible His foolish exclamations I let pass as shewing nothing but his own inconsiderateness and vanity That many of my opinion are against the Lawyers is more then I know they know well that I honour their profession and study though I do no whit flatter them in their injurious and covetous practises Nor do I doubt but conscionable and understanding Lawyers will be for me upon my grounds as soon as other men if they peruse my writings with love to the truth and so would all godly learned Divines also if it were not for prejudice and some other partial affection But I must attend on Mr. B. 12. Saith he But all this yet is but a light velitation The principal thing that I would enquire into is what your great comprehensive fact is in the true nature of it which you call Gods taking the whole people of the Jews to be his people Doth the word taking signifie a meer physical taking or fact or a moral such as among men we call a civil action If it be a meer physical taking then 1. it cannot produce a moral effect such as that in question is 2. And then it must have an answerable object which must be individual existent persons 3. And then you cannot call it one fact but many thousand even as many as there were persons taken in to the Jews in above four hundred years 4. And then what was the physical act which is called Gods taking was it such a taking as the Angel used to Lot that carried him out of Sodome or as the Apocryphal Author mentions of Habakkuk that was taken by the hair of the head and carried by the Angel into another countrey to bring Daniel a mess of pottage If God must by a physical apprehension take hold of them that he makes Churchmembers we shall be at a loss for our proof of their Churchmembership But I cannot imagine that this is your sence But what is it then Is it a physical action though a moral causation of some physical effect That it cannot be For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire aâ—â—er It necessarily remains therefore that this be a political-moral taking that you here speak of And if so then the transeunt fact you speak of must needs be a civil or political action And what that can be which is no Law Promise or Covenant in this case I pray you bestow some more diligence to inform us and not put us off with the raw name of a transeunt fact opposed to these Certainly if it be a civil or legal action the product or effect of it is jus or debitum some due or right And that is either 1. a dueness of somewhat from us which is either somewhat to be done or somewhat to be given 2. or a dueness of something to us which
as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born and of the most open profane children of believers as well aâ— the youngest children born into the world 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally I mean the special distinguishing love of God nor to any of them but according to his election of grace 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers was from his peculiar dâ—sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed bâ—fore in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation 6. If Adams infants he standing in integrity had been visible churchmembers yet they had been such onely in the Church by nature which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church and some not From hence I answer to the argument 1. by denying the antecedent that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin 2. The consequence of the major if it did not it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time much less from Adams creaâ—ion sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire â—f and Gods love might be to believers seed and yet they no visible church-members The last argument whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely he hath in his Letter to me before recited I think to the utmost he could urged it and the answer thereto is fully made here sect 54 55 56 57 58 59. and thereby it may appear not onely to a man of common sense but of acute sense that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abrahamâ— family and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs and that from the Scripture and yet Gods love as great to Noah Sem and their seed as to others Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wiâ—â— our first parents presently upon the fall but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people And though the promise Gen. 3.15 comprehend infants yet not all infants and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15 and that they are thereby Churchmembers hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling that he cites Revel 12.17 to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman against our infants no doubt when the woman Revel 12.17 is not Eve as Gen. 3.15 but the woman cloathed with the Sunne commonly conceived to represent the Chrâ—stian Church and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST which cannot bee said of infants But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity and proceed to the next Ch. 24. arg 19th If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition which is made evident thus God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men both from the Church and from life for the sins of their progenitors therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men so much as into the visible Church then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church which is not yet proved All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices were swallowed up with them for their rebellion and so cut off both from the Church and life Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin and so cut off both from the Church and life Jos. 7.25 â—â— Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shouâ—d serve other Gods by the sedâ—cement of whomsoever that is if they should break the Covenant for the Covenant is that they take God onely for â—heir God then that City should wholly be destroyed and not so much as the infants spared Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command Num. 31.17 they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions Dan. 6.24 Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance the Hittites Amorites Canaanites Perezites the Hivites and Jebusites Deut. 20.16 17. How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d Com. And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church or Kingdom then hee should not onely shew more severity to the seed of the wicked then mercy to the seed of the faithful but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed and the many promises to them and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech such as should be used in Disputes For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God and goodness yet the term of proneness to