interest suspended But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lords Supper and of baptism as of privileges meerly whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privilege 2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism that though they have the right to it yet by reason of infancy the actual interest of it is to be suspended they being no more able to profess the faith till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a Kingdome So that Mr. Blakes answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument confirm it not at al but shew how we may grant his Major and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infancy and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not Anâ—wers He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review and excepts 1. That I shew not where to find Mr. Baillees words But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned he had found them quickly in the third section 2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made the genus of a rite as of baptism to which he replies in his flirting fashion We shall expect another letter to shew Saint Pauls definition Rom. 4.11 to be alike light who runs upon the same errour if an errour when he saies that Circumcision is a sign and seal there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to distinguish it from other signs and seals of the righteousness of faith The nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure and the whole efficacy of it in the use And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out To which I answer Paul doth not give a definition Rom. 4.11 of circumcision much less doth he define a Sacrament in general Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say every circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith and every seal of the righteousness of faith is circumcision Besides individuals are not wont to be defined but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham and no other The title given to Abrahams circumcision doth but shew what the use of it was to him not what was the constant nature and use of it on and to others Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so exactly noted by the Apostle to wit the times of his justification and circumcision which do shew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcision on his own body what he there said of Circumcision There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith then to make that 1 Tim 6.10 the root of all evil the definition of the love of money or that Heb. 6.16 the end of all strife the definition of an oath or that v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable the definition of hope or that Heb. 11.1 the evidence of things not seen the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it being a Metaphor for a Metaphor shews not what it is but what it is like Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent as in the subject a passion The relation that comes to it is not from its nature but by institution and is the end of it rather than the genus rather for what it is than what it is A seal is an artificial body compound of a substance and figure which cannot be said of Circumcision What Mr. Bl. saith that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure cannot be true of such a figure as is in a Seal for so baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament sith they do not make any figure on the body nor of figure of speech for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign but an audible I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing as the breaking bread Christs body broken and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christs body But the use belongs to the difference to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose not to the genus And yet sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith What is said Rom. 4.11 that Abraham received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith is not all one with this a seal of the Covenant of grace For it is added which he had yet being uncircumcised and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant concerning a thing to be done but of a thing accomplished or already done I see not how Rom. 4.11 either the general nature of a Sacrament or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use I suppose baptism and the Lords Supper have their efficacy in comforting moving to holiness love c. after the use The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth which I now omit It is sufficient at present to shew the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant and initial seals as Synonymous to sacraments and baptism especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be used I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errours from a late devised term and imposing on mens consciences yet I profess if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal that I think that it would not follow that it hath that relation to the Covenant that infants in Covenant must not be denied it but that it is a frivolous argument infants are in covenant therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant for which if I had no other reason yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant and have right to the seal yet he is not to have it till the appointed time it were sufficient to justifie my censure Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech that to have the promise and to be a disciple or believer are not all one for he conceives to have a promise in Scripture phrase is to possesse it as those Jews after the flesh did possess Rom. 9.4 And how to possesse a promise without faith he doth not yet understand Whereto I reply that I find the term promise used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised as Lukeâ—4 â—4 49 when Christ saith I send the promise of the Father upon you he means
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
to the terms of that Covenant their God There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people which are almost endless but there we have this confirmed tâ—at that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed Answ. This last speech might be granted and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text yet he attains not his end unless he prove that by vertue of that Covenant all the Israelits by natural discent weâ—e Godâ— regenerate jâ—stified people for the thing he should prove against me is that Gen. 17.7 God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abrahams natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeliâ—es were termed Gods by vertue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. 20.5 c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of Gal. 3.16 17. And the speeâ—hes Exod. 20.2 Deut. 5.6 Exod. 5.1 Deut. 14.1 2. though spoken of the body of Israel yet may and are to be understood at least in some senses of them not of every individual Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not nor were they his people nor legally so as to afford them that protection and temâ—oral blessings which are promised in the Laâ— Deut. 28. c. to Ahab Achan Korah and such like But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part the people he fore knew as the Apostle himself expounds it Rom. 11.2 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law to the obedient to the Law as of long life to dutifull children safety whiâ—e they kept the Solemn Feasts Exod. 20.12 24.24 Nor doth Amos 3.1 2. which he saith is full to his purpose say that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Aegypt by vertue of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less to every one of them Evangelically nor doth he say he had known them â—ll Evangelically but had known them onely that is had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7 God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefiâ—s In the 4th place saith he I argue from the practise of the people of God making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed a Plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel the worst of Israâ—l in their lowest state and condition Deut. 9.26 27. If this Divinity had been thâ—n known Moses might have been sent away with this answer That he spake for dogs and not for children not for Israel but for Aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel But as this anâ— the like requests of the people of God were made in faith so they prevailed with God Moses there urgeth they are thy people and thine ineritance v. 39. as doth the Church Isa. 64.9 and Moses petition takes as the History shews Exod. 32.14 Yea when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in Covenant Levit. 26.42 it is upon this account of the Covenant And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage he saith to Moseâ— Exod. 3.6 and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance â—nsw Thaâ— which Mr. Bl. should prove is That Covenant exprest in those words Gen. 17.7 in their fullest latitude as they are spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter ch 10. pag. 55 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13 Deut. 29.27 Levit 26.42 Exod. 3.6 to prove that Gen 17.7 was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacobs posterity such as of which Circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant to be the God of believers and their seed Gen 17.7 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alledged do prove either the former or this last assertion The petition of Moses Exod. 32.13 was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf Gods speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it and making Moses a great Nation Moses to divert God from this thing alledgeth 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Aegypt with great power and a mighty hand and if he should consume them the Aegyptians would reproach him as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Aegypt Where it is true God calls the body of them his people But this must be understood if Evangelically in respect of the better part onely if Legally either de jure because they ought to have been his people being delivered from Aegypt and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8 to obey God or de facto because he had done so great things for them and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the stars of heaven and giving the land of Canaan to them and that they shall inherit it for ever not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings nor a word tending to shew the extent of thâ— promise Gen. 17.7 in respect of gospel grace The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26 27 28 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer this Divinity was then known to God and God might have sent away Moses with this answer That he spake for some who were dogs or reprobates and not children of God according to the election of grace which is the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.10 11 16 17 18 19. and that they were strangers from the Coâ—monwealth of Israel that is of the Israel of God Gal 6.16 And tâ—is is also the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 and therefore I count this no absurâ—ity But I grant they even the worst of them were not dogs but children and of the Commonwealth of Israel political in respect of their outward state and in that respect holy and different from other people To the other I answer it is true Moses prayed in faith and was heard but there is no mention in the places alledged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite but for the preventing an utter destruction of them Nor doth he at all express any such faith whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits but that God would not destroy them in which respect he was heard And in like manner
came to free his whole Church from that visible Church-membership it had then by natural descent and consequently to alter the visible Church membership of infants into a more perfect way by setting up a Church throughout the world not by carnal descent in one nation but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ through the preâ—ching of the Gospel And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law it 's bondage and Tutorage whether it like him or not sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means besides that of Circumcision and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed 3. Yet further saith he when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law and the bondage of minority is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before and hath advanced us in his family as the Heir at age is advanced And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family Christs Church is his family and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family Why may he not as well say that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state and made members of a far better Church then that particular Church of the Jews was Answ. It is true Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before and that is the reason why infants are left out I say not cast out of his visible Church For whereas the particular Church of the Jews in which alone infants were visible Church-members was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God and was by descent of birth and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual consisting onely of them who owned Christ as their Lord and therefore till infants do so they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle it being agreeable to his scope if they will speak rightly And the body of the Jewish nation I mean the greatest or most considerable part if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized their children being not baptized till they professed had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared Mr. B. adds 4. And if any yet say that it is not the infants but onely the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state is not this text plain against him For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age yet I can prove that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity Act. 3. last And now judge I pray whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership Answ. That which I say is that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved a Church of a better constitution is by God erected and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state that is from carnal to spiritual which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian till they be disciples or believers and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law which were their bondage Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed For it follows not redemption is extended to those that were under the Law therefore to each individual or to each species or age the term being indefinite and the speech true if any under the Law and those of one species or age be redeemed as in like sort when God is said to choose the poor the weak things of this world this proves not universal election of the poor or weak sith the terms being indefinite they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law all are under the Law Ergo To which I answered by denying the minor producing Gal. 4.21 Rom. 6.14 c. though I might hâ—ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law it will follow that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew for they were under the Law and then it will follow thaâ— the Jews were universally redeemed that they might reâ—eive the adoption of sons And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5 concerning which besides what I have said before Sect. 33 34 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings Provoc provocatus in answer to Boatman ch 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption conditional Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditional are notions in Divinity I do not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's plaâ—e as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities Acts 3. last in the sense he can prove as he thinks that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onely for universal redemption conditionally but also for universal conversion conditionally Which if true then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity Acts 3.26 conditionally and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will he must hold universal grace of conversion and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will which is indeed the venome of Arminianism
taken in by a promise nor was the promise or the seal grounded that is made or given by reason of the righteousness of faith to or in those to whom they were made or given Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B. 5. Saith he Inâ—ants were Churchmembers long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth and the â—udicial laws given them And as the Apostle argues the law which was many hundred years after could not make void the promise and so it could not be that this was part of the meerly judicial law Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth and judicial laws given as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Shâ—lah to take their brothers wife Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah concerning Tamar v. 24. before Moses time though then both were compleated Though the law makes not void the promise yet the law of infants visible Churchmembership if there were any such might be meerly judicial 6. Saith he That it is neither a meer judicial nor proper to the Jews appeareth thus That which was proper to the Jews was given to them onely that is onely to Isaac and his seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were intailed But many hundreds were circumcised as Churchmembers among them many infants in Abrahams family before ever Isaac was born and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in The children of Keturah and their children and the children of Ishmael c. were once all Churchmembers let any shew when they were unchurched except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness or let any shew that the same sons of Keturah who must circumcise their sons as Churchmembers while they were in Abrahams family must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family Did God change laws and revoke such mercies and priviledges to the seed of Abraham meerly because of their removing from his house and change of place Who dare believe such fancies without one word of Scripture Remember therefore that it is here plainly proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews Answ. That which waâ— proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac onely and his seed but common to Abraham Isaac and Jacobs family or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews When Ishmael was cast out and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac Gen. 25.6 they were not Churchmembers nor their children no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed Ezra 10. Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit however it seem to us Nor is this conceit a fancy but plain from those Scriptures named and others which still reckon the Ishmaeliâ—es Edomites Ketureans and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Israel as a profane people and so not Churchmembers Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Churchmembers or did it when separated from the Hebrew people So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews but that it is partly natural and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith as he speaks SECT LXIX Mr. B. ch 20. by his 15th arg from infants being once members in the universal visible Church hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed CH. 20. My 15th arg saith he is this If all infants who were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church which was never taken down then certainly their Churchmembership is not repealed But all infants that were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church therefore their Churchmembership is not repealed The consequence is beyond dispute because the universal Church never ceaseth here And in my judgement the whole argument is so clear that were there no more it were sufficient Answ. The very conclusion is so palpably false that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should shew himself so besotted as to prove so inâ—ustriously a thing contrary to sense that the visible Churchmembership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed that is ceaseth For who knows not that Isaac Jacob Moses David with millionâ— more are dead and are now no members in any visible Church If it be said that Mr. B. means the species of infants I reply then he speaks non-sense and false For the species is but one and therefore to â—erm the species which is but one all infants in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church for members are individuals nor is the universal visible Church totum universale which may bee thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches but totum integrale an integral whole consisting of parts existing and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased It is false also that the species an be termed visible For that is visible which may be discerned by sense but sense discerneth not species but individuals If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body as a river whiâ—h conâ—inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel neither will this â—ee for his purpose For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease and other infants succeed 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people to wit the Jews wâ—o had heretofore infants visible churchmembers they are broken off from being Gods visible Church and so the succession of churchmembers in tâ—at people ceaseth and it is that which is denied tâ—at in the other channel to wit the visible Christian Church infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants and if the sense be thus the whole argument is this If infants visible churchmembership be and â—ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish then it is not repealed But infants visible churchmembership is and ought to be taken to be in the christian visible Church as in the Jewish ergo of which I should deny the minor But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false And therefore I answer to his argument if the parenthesis which was never taken down be a part of the antecedent in the major and the sense be this and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not and this be supplied in the minor I dâ—ny the minor if it be not supplied I
may be said oâ— Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause I conceive the election of bodies societies or nations in the sense I have often given may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers as into the visible Church of true professors and that the election of the Gentiles by which they were ingraffed was into the invisible Church of true believers Of Calvins and Bâ—cers words I shall say no more having not â—he books Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges Mr. T. sect 4. replies that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved which is that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised But by his favour he that concludes the whole concludes the parts of the whole Outward Church-priviledges is the whole baptism is a part of the whole concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury concludes also that his head and shoulders are And if any priviledge bee concluded then baptism is concluded which is the leading one among Church-priviledges Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury for so hee means I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole and consequently Baptism as a part Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper and Church office Nor is the other plea much better For some priviledge may be concluded as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did and yet not baptism For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith yet afore a person is a believer if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants it must be laying on of hands the Scripture giving no hint of any other The distinction I give in the first part of my Review sect 4. p. 28. is handsome being set down as it is by me there though Mr. Bl. carp at it for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term I may say of them if they may be so called and not rather legal Mr. Bs. words the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership and the repealing of the ordinance therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church there is no such revoking or repealing do justifie the title of the 6th sect of the first part of my Review That the breaking off Rom. 11.17 was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership as Mr. B. conceive which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me And his first reason the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief now unbelief is not in infants much less proper to infants serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off for unbelief is not in them and that infants of believers are not graffed in For as the deserving cause of breaking off iâ— unbelief which is not in infants so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith which is not in infants And when in his 2d reason he saith this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews that is the major part Now infants were not the generality they made not up the major part of that body this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality which he denies infants to be and therefore the body and genâ—rality may be ingraffed and not infants Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons specially when the breaking off is of a people nor is it usual to term thâ—se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were but might have been as when we are said to be redeemed delivered from hell to be cast out into outer darkness Matth. 8.12 though never in heaven But were not this right but non-sense yet Mr. â—ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually but such as are imaginable which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism as all Logicians know Yet what Mr. Bl. saith excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member But this here is the act of God which is by taking away the Kingdome by removing their Candlestick departing with his presence is right if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit as well as his word Which is to be conceived for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off and consequently the fâ—tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances And if it be not the Churches act but Gods by which there is ingraffing then infants are not ingraffed who have no act of God to ingraff them but onely that of the Church or administratour of Baptism Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership begun in the great Charter of heaven and continued is but vapouring Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it That the Jews were cast off for unbelief but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief which I denied and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous But the text assignes unbelief Mr. T. assignes no other cause then that must stand To which I reply and so it doth by my answer and yet I do assign another cause Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation To what I said that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21 if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off he saith we easily yeild his conclusion if he frame it in a syllogism that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off They could never be broken off that were never taken in A branch of a bramble was never broken off
remembred his Covenant for ever the word which hee commanded to a thousand generations But first The word is not meant of the command of a seal to bee applied to infants but of his own promise which hee will have firme as his Command Psalm 133.3 42.8 44.4 as the New Annotat and Piscat on the place which also appears from the words following which terme it Gods Covenant hee made with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac which is expressed vers 11. which cannot be understood of his Command to us what we should do but his promise of what hee himself will do Secondly the word commanded signifieth Gods decree within himself Or as Diodati in his note on the place Hee commanded which hee appointed by his soveraign and irrevocable decree as the word commanded is used Psalm 133.3 and elsewhere Thirdly To a thousand generations notes not just so many But as Piscator in his scholiâ— on the place it is by a synecdoche of the kinde as if it were said unto many ages And this must needs bee granted sith the Covenant however it bee granted to imply in the latent sense the promise of the heavenly inheritance yet in the patent sense must bee understood as v. 11.44 compared shew of the earthly Canaan which they had not a thousand generations but for many ages as Exod. 20.6 To thousand generations is meant not precisely so many and no more but a long time indefinite beyond three or four generations and thus must also bee understood the promise of the land of Canaan to bee for ever to be an everlasting possession that is for a long time as frequently it is used Exod. 21.6 Exod. 40.15 1 Sam. 2.35 Levit. 23.14 21 31 41 c. What hee saith of Baptism being the same for substance and equivalent to Circumcision unless hee mean it that infant Baptism and infant Circumcision are one equivalent to the other and the same for substance in this sense they are of no force not obliging Christians nor benefiting them it will be found in examining that which follows to have no truth Mr. C. adds And that this blessing upon families and posterity was signified held forth and sealed by circumcising the child appeareth further by that promise uttered in that phrase Deut. 30.6 which kind of expression intimates that the promise of the conversion of their children was held forth and confirmed in that seal As when the Apostle saith wee are baptized into one body is signified and sealed in Baptism our union with Christ in one body because else those words had been in no capacity to have been so used in that sense as they are used both by the Apostle and by Moses Answ. 1. The phrase of circumcising the heart Deut. 30 6 being used to express conversion or change of the heart doth shew indeed that there is some resemblance between them yet that it is so by institution is not proved no more then because by breaking up our fallow ground together with circumcising the same thing is siâ—nified Jer. 4.3 4. and by washing Isa. 1.16 therefore plowing and washing are by institution to bee used to that end 2. But be it granted that Circumcision was instituted to signifie the châ—nge of the heart as baptism our union with Christ in one body yet this proves not that it was to signifie and seal a promise of something future but rather what was already done For if it signifie as Baptism then it signifies conversion already effected Baptism being a sign that the person was united to Christ and to all his members by one spirit as the very terms 1 Cor. 12.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee have been baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have been drencht shew And though the words Deut. 30.6 are a promise yet the term circumcise of it self and in like manner the use of circumcision according to the institution may as well note a thing done as a thing promised to bee done 3. Nevertheless let it bee granted that circumcision did in the institution of it note conversion of the heart and signified a promise of it as being a token of the Covenant in which that was covertly promised yet this proves not that it held forth a blessing upon families and posterity For there is no mention Deut. 30.6 of families though there be of posterity and that mention which is of posterity is of them not in their infant but adult estate and upon condition of the childs returning to God and obeying his voice as well as the parents as Mr. Baxter rightly observes in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. I may add that the promise there is expressed onely concerning one case to wit repentance in captivity v. 1 2.3 4. and the promise as appears from v. 5. is a promise peculiar to the Israelites 4. But were this further granted that thence might be proved that circumcision by institution signified the promise of conversion of posterity and that this were to Gentile believers yet this is nor that which Mr. C. would evince that the application of the seal to infants in that it was to infants sealed this promise or that the promise was sealed in Mr. Cs. sense so as that God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents and make parents a blessing so as that Abrahams seed by faith should be multiplied in families and nations by them What Mr. C. adds That the sign had not held proportion with the thing signified namely there had been nothing in the sign to signifie and seal that blessing upon posterity had the application of it to infants been left out is but a vain dictate For 1. if the sign held similitude with the thing signified though it held not proportion so as to be applied to all whose conversion was signified it might serve for the use of a sign as a conveyance to a Father may assure the childs interest and therefore that which Mr. C. dictates that for this reason infants were to be circumcised to seal that promise of believers being a blessing added to Adams Covenant is a vain conceit without proof sith it might have been as well assured if the parents had been circumcised onely as well as when the male infants onely were circumcised And that which he saith further is most false and vain Nor indeed had there been any use of the application of it to the infant nor that made a part of the Ordinance had there not been such a branch in the Covenant as a blessing upon families and posterity to be thereby signified and sealed For besides this that Mr. C. proves neither that branch in the Covenant nor that use of infant Circumcision it is clear by Stephens speech Act. 7.5 6 7 8. that Abraham circumcised Isaac in assurance of the land of Canaan and that he received the Covenant of Circumcision to that end and that the circumcising of infants had this use to signifie Christ to come seems plainly
〈◊〉 yet our translators and the Vulgar and Beza read it unto the Gentiles as if there it noted onely a dative case and if it were among the Gentipes there yet here Col. 1 2â— it cannot be so because the object is in the singular number but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is for among is joyned still with a noun of the plural And 2. that which saith he puts this out of all doubt is that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mark 16.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But to all this the answer is ready by observing the exact notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole creation as we render it Rom. 8.22 as that signifies the whole but especially the Gentile world and accordingly is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28. and farther explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole world to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this whole creation Now of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this notion it is clear that though it be in the singular number yet that hath the power of the plural as the word world and the like which every body knowes is a noun of multitude and so is creation when it is thus taken for the whole created world meaning the world of men the nations or people of the world And then there can be no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most exactly thus to be rendred preached in or among the whole creation as Gal. 1.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach in the nations or among the Gentiles and so 1 Tim. 3.16 also though the sense being no way altered by rendering it unto the whole creation or every creature and the Gentiles it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendred which yet must not prescribe for other places where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendring as in this case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is observable where therefore the litteral rendering being retained we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it then that litteral reading will afford us As for the parallel phrase Mark 16. that doutless can prove nothing 1. Because the places are not nor can be thought parallel 2. Because if they were as of Matth. 28. and Mark 16. hath been granted yet the parallel lying onely in the sense and that being all one whether they preacht to or among the Gentiles this no way concludes that the phrases are the same or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one redundant which is the onely thing for the proving of which this parallel is produced but of that I have formerly spoken Answ. Had the Dr. shewed any one interpreter that ever rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23 by inter omnem creaturam among every creature or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifies inter or among or either of these prepositions is put in Latin or English before a noun of multitude in the singular number he had said more then I yet deem hee can or I think any other Grammarian nor do I take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a noun of multitude there may bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though there were but one individual though I grant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes many creatures nor do I conceive it good sense to render it in every creature sith the term creature doth note persons not place and to be preached in every creature would imply such a sense as will not suit with the matter which is conceived by many interpreters to note the accomplishment of what Christ appointed Mark 16.15 which leaving out the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the common use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach being with a Dative case of the object I did infer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant and a note of the Dative case as Pasor before me in his Lexicon of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he saith saepe ex Hebraismo redundat Col. 1.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 predicati omni creaturae Sure if it were most exactly rendered as the Dr. saith preached in or among the whole creation it is marvail none hit on this afore the Dr. as they have done Gal. 3.16 1 Tim. 3.16 Whether Col. 1.23 and Mar. 16.15 be parallel in the manner I make them is to be referred to the Readers judgement when he shall compare them together Sure I finde all these Beza Camerarius Piscator Zonchius Grotius Davenant Trapp the new Annotations Elton referring to and explaining one by the other and the Dr. confessing the sense the same every Grammarian that understands Greek may plainly see the phrase to be the same save that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added Col. 1. â—3 and therefore from all these I infer as most probable and to me certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant that it 's onely the sign of the dative case of the object that it is most truely rendered as our Translators and many more rendered to every creature that is as Gorram expounds it universis hominibus to all or all sorts of men As for the Drs. cautions about prescribing and concluding they are impertinent to the present thing concerning Col. 1.23 whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be redundant the sign of the Dative case there Whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7.14 he to be rendered to whether the sense will bear it whether it make any other change in the sense then is fit or any more be concluded then is deducible is before and after to be discussed Hitherto it appears not but that I said right Matth. 17.12 Col. 1.23 cannot be eluded The Dr. goes on His third instance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 4.12 which he cannot yet conceive but that it is better rendred to men then among men And his reasons are First because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath most regularly and consequently it should be constantly a dative case of the person after it Secondly because if it had been among men it had been to be placed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other there is no other name among men given but being placed after given it is to be expounded as referred to given not to other and so must bee read to men not among men Thirdly It seems no good sense nor true that Christ was a name given among men for though he were among men yet he was given from above To all which he adds the judgement of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1â— cited by Beza and a parallel phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 7.44 To this I answer First That 't is true when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath any case of the person following and governed by it that is constantly the dative but that is no way applicable to this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there the persons 〈◊〉