then sealed but as they were Abrahams spiriâ—ual and Church-seed Answer We sever not the subject parties taken into Covenant consideration as Mr. C. speaks but distinguish them Nor do we leave out that Noâ—ation of Seed scil in their generations but take it in as I have said the Proselytes if believers as Abraham they are his seed by Faith if noâ— they are not 〈◊〉 seed according to Scripture Abrahams Church-Seed is a new-devised term without Scripture Yet the proselytes and their chiâ—dren were to be circumcised by vertue of the command whether they had any part in the covenant or not as being in his house though not of his seed And if by Gods solemnly enjoyning a Seal to a Blank or a seal to no Covenant of his â—e meant that circumcision of the Proselytes was a token of that Covenant which was no covenant of Gods I deny it it was a Covenant of Gods in which he made many promises it was not a token of a Covenant that assured nothing as a paper in which noâ—hing is written which we call a Blank there were promises and persons specified in the covenant But if the meaning be this That God solemnly enjoyned that such should be circumcised to whom no promise was made in that Covenant I grant it true Ishmael c. and count it no absurdity to say God in that sense did solemnly enjoyn the Seal to be put to a Blank Circumcision in the Institution of it was a token or signe of the Covenant made with Abraham Rom. 4.11 to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith is said of no ones circumcision but Abrahams What Mr. C. means That it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith not so much Subjectivè as Objectivè Rom. 4. I understand not except this be his meaning that it did seal not so much the righteousness of faith to the persons circumcised as this truth That righteousness is by faith Being understood of Abrahams personall circumcision I concâ—ive it sealed both wayes of any other mans circumcision I find not the Apostle calling it the Seal of the righteousness of Faith But of Seals and sealing I have spoken sufficiently in sundry Sections before I shall not contend about that passage That the Baptism of Simon Magus was in the nature of it and Gods institution a visible Seal of the most spirituall part of the covenant and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant my former explication being remembred And I take it as true which next followes It is peculiar to the elect to be in the covenant in respect of the participation of the saving efficacy of it Rom. 9.6 7 8. And hence observe that none but the elect are rightly said to be in the covenant of grace For none are in the covenant of grace but they to whom it is made for what is it to be in the covenant but to have it made to him So the Directory so Rom. 9.8 But they to whom the covenant of grace is made are the elect onely The covenant of grace is the covenant of Saving grace Heb. 8.10 11 10.16 Rom. 11.26 1 Cor. 11.25 Heb. 13.20 of Regeneration Iustification c. But that is made onely to the Elect Ergo. The Minor is proved thus They to whom it is made they have the saving efficacy otherwise God should make it and not perform it and so his Word fall which is not to be granted But the elect onely have the saving efficacie as Mr. C. conâ—esseth Ergo. I deny not Reprobates may in respect of their own profession be said to be externally in the covenant of grace in appearance to meâ— in the face of the visible Church but not in respect of Gods promise and before him which they say is sealed in the Sacrament Nor do I deny the appointment of God to be to circumcise or baptize Reprobates as well as elect and that the nature of these ordinances is the same on both sorts though the use and efficacy in part be various Nor do I deny the covenant with Abraham one yet hold it is mixt which is proved from the words of Mr C. here in that it holds forth variety of covenant-blessings some more common to all and some more peculiar to a few But I deny the Gospel doth hold forth blessing common to any other than the godly It is true there are promises of this life 1 Tim. 4.8 1 Cor. 3.22 Mark 10.30 and Reprobates have some such outward things as the elect as cloaths aiâ—e life but not as blessings from the Gospel neither sanctified in the same manner nor upon the sâ—me tenure As for circumcision it was the covenant metonymically onely and did confirm the whole covenant sacramentally to elect and reprobate Mr. C. yet adds That if that sort of persons to wit Infants or Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which it 's said onely persons come to be Abrahams seed it 's enough to prove that Gentile inchurched believers infants are the the seed of Abraham But that is fully proved from Gal. 3.7.6.9.16.27 28 29. where by Christ is meant Christ mysticall that is Christ with his Body the Church as 1 Cor. 12.13 If then Infants be not Abrahams seed then are they not members of Christ nor of the invisible Church and so are without salvatiâ—n To which I answer That I never denied that elect infants were Abrahams spirituall seed nor said onely by actuall faith persons are Abrahams spiritual seed but grant that some infants are Abrahams spirituall seed whether by election onely or by seed of faiâ—h or by such a special secret work as is unknown to us like Jacobs struggling in the womb and taking hold on his brothers heel or John Baptists leaping in the womb of his mother for joy and so are of the body of Christ and members of the invisible Church and thereby saved But I deny that infants of Gentile believers whether elect or not are Abrahams spiritual seed and in that respect in the covenant of grace or promise of God being their God and thereby admitted to baptism But Mr. C. adds I say to exclude that sort of persons scil believers Infants from being a part of the visible-visible-church in generaâ— is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individual Infants and each of them which came of such inchurched parents not to be also parâ—s of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation In respect to the ordinary course thereoâ— and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to be saved in as is only extraordinary ordinarily they are not to be supposed to be saved or at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in an ordinary way any Pagans or
Turkes out of the visible Church or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should be saved yet God may and somtimes doth and will have some souls brought on to him thence and even from amongst Mahometans c. But all will yeild I suppose that this is an extraordinary case and so crosseth not that rule that without even the visiâ—le Church there is no salvation scil Taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times and with all to the ordinary course and wâ—y of attaining unto salvation Ans. Mr. C. his drift I conceive is to prove that if Infants of believers be not visible Church-members they have no ordinary state and way of salvation and that the maxime is true that out of the visible Church in reference to ordinary times and withal to the ordinary course and way of attainining unto salvation there is no salvation Against which I oppose that if the maxim out of the Church there is no salâ—aâ—ion be understood of the visible Church the ordinary state way of salvation it will as well concern Mr. C. to shew how children of believâ—rs endued with a reasonable soul and humane body yet still-born or dying in their mothers womb with her and never born are provided for an ordinary way of salvation as wel as for us concerning Infants born alive I suppose they will not say infants dying in their mothers womb and there buried and never brought to light are visible members of the Church who were never visible men nor that they are to be baptized What ordinary way state of salvation external have they more than Mahometanes If it be said they have election the vertue of Christs death the promise of God according to election the secret work of the spirit I grant it and the same may be said of Infants living nor can it be certainly and without doubt denied of Papists and Mâ—homeâ—aâ—s infants Though I confess it is far more probable that oridnarily God gives these means to Infants of believers whether Churched or unchurched than to the Infants of others and rather to the Infants of true believers than 〈◊〉 professors of faith Yet I dare not determine certainly thereof because of the express resolution of the Apostle Rom. 9. concerning Ishmael and Esau and his reference thence v. 15 16 18 20 21 22. And if he count â—e certain there is no salvation out of the visible Church in an ordinary way there being no ordinary way to estate Infants in the visible church which I grant not as well as he but baptism then he doth as good as affirm that ordinarily no infant is saved without baptism which is either the Popish tenent or not much shorâ— of it This will the more urge M. C. because he limits the promise to Abrahams visible Church-seed in reference to Church-covenant and I suppâ—se they of N. E. baptize not infants of parents not inchurched what ordinary way of salvation have children of believers not inchurched who are not accounted visible Church members when their parents were not And the like must be said of the children of excommunicate persons of uncertain originall Apostates who are with them or some of them no visible Church-members how are they in the visible Church and what provision is for them For my part I conceive that if the matter be impartially considered I think their doctrine is pressed with the like difficulty that mine is I affirm that believers infants and infants of unbelievers if elect are certainly saved ordinarily that is according to the constant course of Gods purpose by vertue of Gods pâ—omise Christs death and the Spirits secret working though they be neither baptized nor are visible Church-members and I think they can say no more concerning infants of believers dying with the mother in the womb and never brought to light which is no unuâ—uall thing I say that it is very probable because of generall indefinite promises and frequent experience that the infants of believing parents are eâ—ect when the infants of Infidels are not Yet I cannot affirm they are elect because the promises are not universall to every believers infants yea if they were as Pedobaptists would have them universall in respect of externall privileges which is not true yet rhere could be no certainty of election and salvation inferred thence And therefore though there be a better ground of hope of the salvation of a believers infant than others yet in a question concerning â—he certainâ—y of the event whether they are saved or no I must suspend my judgement and leave it to Gods secret will having no rule revealed whereby to determine it If Mr. C. assure any more I conceive he wiil deceive himself and others Dr. Twiss Animadvers in Corvin pag. 35. saith thus Ad hâ—c fortè in ea sententia sunt nostri Theologi ut propositum Dei de salvandis fidelium liberis in infantili aetate morientibus haud liquido satis demonstrari in sacris literis Et sanè non diffiteor exitia hujus rei suppeditari nobis ex sacris liâ—eris indiâ—iâ— quibus tamen acquiescimus But Mr C. adds Such then as exclude all Infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spiritual seed from covenant and Church-estate they put them in the Pagans Gentiâ—es estate 〈◊〉 of which Paul speakes who being they and others strangers from the promise and covenants and from the visible Church they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world and so under the Divel the God of the world and in an hopeless estate neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them they are without hope in regard at least of any ordinary way or mean of salvation Eph. 2.11 12. Answ. I exclude not all infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spirituall seed from Covenant and Church-estate meaning this of being Abrahams spiritual seed and included in the covenant of grace and invisible Church which alone can make God to be their God estate them in Christ be the ground of a certain hope of their salvation and that according to an ordinary way They that teach them to be visible Church-members and baptize them cannot give parents a grounded certain infallible hope of salvation without this ordinary way I assen nor can they give more assurance of that way of Baptism than may be given without it baptism not saving without the answer of a good conscience towards God 1 Pet. 3.21 Neither that nor their imaginary visible Church-membership assuring that they are not under the Divel nor without God in the world And if they do they do it without Scipture and experience doth too often refute them Mr C goâ—s on Nor let it seem grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of â—ame and worth in the Church have as it seemeth urged that in case of such an exclusion of believers children they are
of particular infants of true believers moâ—â— probable till the contrary appear by them and for the full certainty I leave it as to me uncertain If we have but a probable hope of the salvation of men at age it is no absurdity in my apprehension to say we have but probable hope of their salvation yet we have a greater degree of probability in our hopes of the salvation of such as have in appearance spent their lives in a holy course then of infants so dying 2. Saith he It is as much as I desire for if their salvation be probable then they are visibly or seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation and so must needs be visible members of the Church How dare Mr. T. refuse to take those for visible Churchmembers whose salvation is probable when he hath no more but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world Answ. 1. I have often told Mr. B. that to be seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation is not all one as to be such visibly and that such may be no visible Churchmembers whose salvation is seeming or probable to our judgement 2. Though I have but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world yet I have a certainty of his profession by which I take him to be a visible Churchmember and not by the probability of his salvation and this I dare do and I wonder how Mr. B. against the current of all the N. T. dare do otherwise 3. But saith he doth not this contradict what went before And I wish he do not contradict it again in his proofs His first proof of the probability is from some general indefinite promises but what these promises are he tels us Apol. pag. 64. By general and indefinite promises be means such as determine not the kinde of good promised nor the particular person and therefore are true if performed to any person in any sort of good and conditional upon condition of faith and obedience Answ. 1. If it determine not the kind of good formally nor virtually nor contain it generically then how doth it make it probable 2. And if it neither determine the person nor give 〈◊〉 ground to determine how then doth it become probable to that person 3. And how then can that promise give hopes to the faithfull of the salvation of their infants which is verified if performed to any person in any sort of good as if it were but to one infant in a nation in reprieving him a day from damnation If it intend more then this then it is not verified or fulfilled in this much if it intend no more then how doth it make their salvation probable 4. And sure the conditional promises which he mentioneth requiring faith and repentance are little to the benefit of infants if these conditions are required of themselves in their infancy And for his other two grounds of hope viz. the favour of God to the parents and experience they are comfortable helps to second the promise but of themselves without a word would give us no ground of Christian hope in such matters as justification and salvation are Answ. I perceive no contradiction in my words 1. By putting in those words nor contain it generically he intimates as if I had denied the promises I mention to contain generically the good of justification and salvation whereas I termed the promises expresly general and cited Psal. 103.17 18. Psal. 112 â— c. which mention Gods righteousness and blessedness and so may comprehend eternal righteousness and blessedness and thereby the justification and salvation of infants becomes probable though it be not certain sith Gods righteousness and blessedness may be conferred in another kind As if a rich King promise money to a mans children it 's probable he will give them gold thouâ—h it be not certain 2. Though the particular person be not determined yet sith the qualification of the person is expressed to be the generation of the righteous it is probable that it is meant of each till the contrary appears as if a man promise to make such a mans children heirs this is probable of every one till it appear otherwise and yet not certain 3. I have shewed how especially if we consider that favours are wont to be amplified to the most Though Gods intentions are not fulfilled perhaps with so litle yet the words may be verified if no more but temporal blessedness be given 4. The conditional promises I confess give us but slender hope of infants by themselves yet with general indefinite promises declarations of Gods favour to his people and experience they yeeld a strong ground of hope of the justification and salvation of infants of believers though not certain and sure as Mr. B. would have but how short he is in proof will appear in that which followes SECT LXXIIII Mr. Bs. allegations p. 76 77 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine His 23d Arg. ch 28. his 25th ch 30. are answered HE tels us That he hath a stronger probabilty then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitted them visible members of his Church For Christ is the Saviour of his body and he present his Church clensed and unspotted to the Father And if God will have them to be visible members of his Church then he would have us take or judge them to be members of it And withal there is less danger of mistake in them then in men at years because they do not dissemble nor hide any hypocritical intents under the vizor of profession as they may do And it is certain also that if God would have some and many to be of the true body of Christ and so be saved then hee would not have all to bee visibly out of that body That he would have have them churchmembers is proved and shall be God willing yet more If God add to the Church such as shall be saved then there is a strong probability of their salvation whom he addeth to the Church Answ. Mr. B. here p. 74. in his arguments 2d and 3d. intimated that he asserted a sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of believers infants so dying and that to be a promise in the word of the salvation of those within the visible Church and here he asserts a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church Yet pag. 78. he dares not say there 's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants so dying Yea pag. 110. he saith Rom. 9.8 the Apostle pleadeth that salvation is not by the Covenant tyed to all Abrahams seed Out of which I infer 1. That Mr. B. hath
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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-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-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-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-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-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
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
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
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
call of the ten Tribes from Hos 1 10. 2.23 is applied to the call of the Gentiles into a Church state and condition And to the objection from Rom. 9.23 he saith God sets up visible â—rdâ—nances and calls to a Church state as is there prophesied that he may there work to himself a people of invisible relation that thereby he may make them vessels of mercy having a sore prepared them to glory Answ. The call Rom 9.25 is not as Mr. Bl seems to conceive an outwaâ—d refusable calling into a visible Church state by visible ordinances but as v. 7 8 11 24 26. calling is effectual calling which gives being to the called and is never refused but proper to tâ—e elect onelâ— Which is apparent from v. 24. where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom also which can have reference to â—one but vessels of mercy mentioned v. 23 who are also sons of the living God v. 26. Whâ—ch being â—rged by me â—n my Postscript sect 10. and not refelled stands as a firm 〈◊〉 that the people of God there are onely elect ones or as Mr. Bl. speaks a â—eople of invisible relation vessels of mercy â—soâ—e prepared to glory The 3d he allâ—dgeth is Revel 18.4 where all professors of faith are included in that exhortation and so all Ministers are to press it Bâ—t though it werâ— the duty of all yea of them that were nâ—t professors of fâ—ith to quiâ— Babylon yet the invitation is a fruit of Gods special care by a voice from heaven and therefore is more â—hen an exhortation to a commoh duty to wit a special effectual call whereby Gods people that is his elect ones shall be brought out of Babylon as Lot out of Sodom and is to be conceived of the elect onely not of hypocritical professors of faith So that Mr. Bl. hath not brought one Text out of the New Testament in which God 's people is applied to meer visible professors and yet if these had served his turn his assertion had been false as is shewed by the number of places wherein God 's people is limited to the elect Another objection is out of Jer. 31.31 32 33. which he saith is set up against all New Testament light to prove that none must be of the called of God inâ—o Covenant for fruition of Church priviledges but those â—hat are râ—generate Men in Old Testament Covenanâ— broke Covenant as is there exprest men in thâ— new Covenant shall keep Covenanant and these are onely the elect and regenerate Answ. The Text joyned with Heb 8.6 7 8 9 10. proves that God makes his new Covenant with none but those who keep it who are the elect onely I prodâ—ce it not to prove as Mr. Bl. suggests of some that none must be of the called of God into Covenant for fruition of Church priviledges but those that are regenerate nor to prove â—hat none shall enter Covenant and transgress it that the Covenant that now is is not in any possibility to be transgrest but to prove that noâ—e to whom God makes his new Covenant do break it which the Author to the Hebrews doth affirm in that he differences this from the former Covenant that the former was faulty or occasioned God to complain that it was broken but this is such as that to take away occasion of complaint for breach of it God makes provision by better promises that it shall not be broken by those to whom it is made Nor doth it hence follow as Mr. Bl. speaks this being the characteristical difference that as none in New Testament times enter Covenant but they keep Covenâ—nt so none in Old Testament times were in Covenant but did transgress it For we do not say as he perverts the position that none in New Testament times enter Covenant but they keep Covenant we know many have by their profession and baptism entred into Covenant and have noâ— kept iâ— but this we say that God makâ—s with none his new Covenant whether in New Testament times or in Old Testament times but they do keep it and that this is the characteristiâ—al difference between the Old and New Covenant not Old and New Testament times which are in the Epistle to the Romanes and Galatians called the Law and the Promises that the one might be and was broken yet the other is and shall be kept by those to whom it is made because of Gods undertaking to write his Laws in their hearts As for an outward Covenant made by God distinct from these and yet in force it is Mr. Bls. figment as Mr. B. hath proved in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. pag. 66 67 â—03 c. As for the answers 1. that the Covenant Jer. 3â— 31 31 33. is not a Covenant â—roperly so called it is refuted before Sect. 33. as I remember 2. That it is not the whole of the Covenant But if it be but a part it is made onely to the elect the other part whatever it be being made to none other 3. If the new Covenant be another Covenant then there must be two distinct Gospel Covenants But this is said upon â—he miâ—take refuted Sect. 43. that the Covenant at Mount Sinai with the Jews was the Gospel Covenant I have again viewed pag. 105 106 107. of Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter and do not find any explication of the promises Jer. 31.31 32 33. which may shâ—w that the promises there are made to any but the elect nor do I find an explication of them whereby to know how he would have them understood but of the term new Covenant which he would have understood as if it were meant onely of a clearer explication of the old Covenant not well understood before as Joh. 13.34 the new commandment is a clearer explication then was formerly But neither is true For the new commandment Joh. 13.34 is not so called from a new explication but a new motive his own example as the very words shew And the new Covenant is so called Jer. 31.31 32 33. not from a clearer explicâ—tion buâ— better promises Heb. 8.6 And I still profess that I find not that Mr. Bls. answer is quit from enervating the argument for effectual grace and perseverance in it sith he makes the Covenant to be to the non-elect nor doth he demonstrate that I cannot buiâ—d effectual grace and perseverance on that text making it a distinct Covenant from the first without the oâ—erthrow of effectual gâ—ace and perseverance in Old Testamâ—nt times Thus much for answer to those three Chapters of Mr. Bl. he that would see more of Mr. Bls. mistakes about the Covenant may read Mr. Baxters Book afore quoted SECT XLVII Mr. Bls. Vindic. Fâ—ed Ch. 34. Concerning the stating the question of the Birth-priviledge of the issue of â—elievers is examined and his Objections against my stating it removed MR. Bl. ch 34. complains that my confusion hath mudded the way that my mixture brings a cloud upon all he might as well say light
view his proofs First saith he Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israeâ—ites priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine â—n number Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant tâ— be of Gods adopted seed under the promises Answ. He might more truely have said here sure is nothing as it was printed to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be of Gods adâ—pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it contained Gospel grace The priviledges could not be oâ— all that according to the flesh were Israelites for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come now were all if any of them priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times but at some times And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls purpose yea this Scripture and that whâ—ch followes put together are an antithesis to his thesis Secondly saith he Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant Answ. The conclusion is granted the natural issue of Abrâ—ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages but those broken off were never in the Covenant of grace Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons but in which their progenitors were nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him but never by right of birth It is false if meant of casting off from being his people as it is meant Rom. 11.1 2 that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people understanding it in their own persons But of this text and this argument more hath been said in the first part of this Review and more will be if the Lord permit in that which follows Thirdly saith he Matth. 8.11 12. whence he thus argues Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome onely upon an inâ—erest of Birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome onely on an interest of birth Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position for if it bee as he here saith thaâ— they were not children of the Kingdome though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7 wherein God saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 17 18 c. expounds it then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripâ—ure they can be taken therefore this argument overthrowes his own positiâ—n 3. If by being in the Kingdome be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish the conclusion is granted but withal it is proved from the same text that they were never in the visible Church Christian but were opposite to it in that they embraced not the Christian Faith but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ and so had no right to baptism though they had circumcision and did eat the passeover 4 It is manifest from the text and agreed upon by interpreters that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down for it is said v. 1 1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onely nor had being in it for the fruition of â—he priviledges of ordinances but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven ergo 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth is the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaâ—en and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances ergo 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews who contemned the Gentiles Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors in the best highest and happiest place and condition 4. Exâ—ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the priviâ—edges of ordinances such as Câ—rcumcision the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper for some of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob did never partake of nor ever shall nor may the Gentiles with them partake of circumcision and the passeover for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers which had been to establish Judaiâ—m contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls
of promise barely as made by God but as it was fulfilled and preached is Christ said to sanctifie or clense his Church And by this all said to be purified Ephes. 5.26 are clensed and therefore no infants who are not at all capable of understanding it and therefore not so capable of being clensed by it as the blind and deaf Mr. B. yet adds Object But it is the invisible Church that Christ is said thus to clense Answ. 1. Certainly those that are washed with water or hearing the word or either are all visible members 2. The visible Church hath the outward priviledges and titles of the invisible because as to us they must in prohability be judged to belong to both Therefore Paul freqâ—ently calls them all saints and sons of God by faith c. Ref. Though they be of the visible who are so washed yet the Church Ephes. 5.25 26 27. cannot be meant of the meerly visible but onely of them who are so of the visible that they are also of the invisible as is proved before from the things said of the Church which agree to none other And thus Mr. B. hath my answer to that Ch. and my apprehension of his major let 's now view his minor and try his Achilles which he is so confident of SECT L. The fifth Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture proof c. Part. 1. is examiand the texts Gal. 4.1 c. Matth. 28.19 cleered so as to prove infants now no visible Church-members CH. 5. he begins thus Though I have many and clear aâ—guments from the new Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church as I shall let you see God willing when I come to them yet because I think it most orderly to take them before us from the beginning I wiâ—l first fetch one from the old Testament and that such as is fully confirmed from the new For I hope you are none of those who have wiped out all the old Testament from your Bibles or that presently look upon a text as no text if you hear it come from the old Testament Answ. I Know none at Bewdley so erroneous or foolish But Mr. B. may see if his high soaring meditations and studies will allow him time to descend to view such a low argument as hee oft disdainfully speaks something written in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 2 3. which tends to prove that no good argument can be drawn from the old Testament for his admission of infants visible Church members And for his many and clear arguments from the New Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church he did wisely put in the caution God willing when I come to them I shall let you see them to save his credit though he never shew them For my part I despair of ever seeing them As for those I have found brought by him the chief have been examined in the first and second Part of this Review and found impertinent The dispute that remains to be viewed is so immethodical that had Mr. B. ever been bred up in Schools I am confident he would have been ashamed of it But I must now follow him in his own track I therefore saith he argue thus First If by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church then some infants are to be so admitted still But by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church therefore they are so to be admitted still Answ. Mr. B. pag. 24. plainly saith that by admitting he means solemn admitting that since baptism was instituted or established we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way that as a souldier before listing and as a King before crowning and taking his oath so are we and infants Church-members before baptism He saith pag. 26. of this argument I will first fetch you one from the Old Testament Whence 1. it is apparent that his visible Church membership and admitting visible Church-members are not the same 2. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of visible Church-membership is not aâ—l one with the merciful gift and appointment of God of admission of visible Church-members 3. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting visible Church-members is by some solemn rite Which is confirmed in that he speaks of admitting visible Church-members as a duty to be performed by some persons as when he saith ch 4. ought to be admitted visible Church members and in this place were once to be admitted visible Church-members Visible Church-membership might be and was a gift of God not a duty which is some action to be done by man but a state or relation resulting from the foundation or cause or reason of it Now if Mr. B. cannot shew as I am confident he cannot any other gift or appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church members in the old Testament unrepealed besides that of circumcision then either his antecedent as hee terms it must be meant of it or else he mocks the people of God with a pretended merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church-members unrepealed which is no where extant but is fained by himself to delude them and if it be that of Ciâ—cumcision then his minor asserts the appointment of Circumcision and hâ—s conclusion is that our infants are still to be circumcised Nor can I with all my enquiry and study conceive if he had understood himself he could mean any other For by his making admission solemn comparing it with listing of a Souldier crowning of a King it is manifest that he understood it of a solemn Rite and speaking of it as a thing that ought to be he must mean it of an act to be performed by man and limiting it now to Baptism he intimates it was by some Rite answerable to Baptism heretofore which I hardly think any learned man but would conceive must be meant of Circumcision and no other sith no oâ—her was appointed by God to infants for admission of them as visible Church-members It is true he often when I pressed him in the Dispute to speak plainly whether he meant by his appointment or Law unrepealed that of Circumcision did deny it and distinguished between the Law of infants visible Church-membership and that of Circumcision but he never shewed me a Law of infants admission as visible Church members besides it And in his arguments whereby he proves the not repealing he concludes about the not repealing of the Law of infants visible Church-membership not of their admission Of which fallacy I had in the Dispute some obscure apprehension and therefore pressed him so often to speak plainly and told him he must mean it of Circumcision which fact of mine Mr. B. did in the Dispute and doth here ch 23. represent as
no plain Scripture nor any argument for a Law or Ordinance that infants are were or shall be visible Church-members of which I need prove a repeal though I grant he hath proved a Law or Ordinance for the admission of infants by Circumcision which is the onely Law or Ordinance I finde in him either for infants visible Church-membership or their admission and if he hold it unrepealed I can quickly prove the contrary Nevertheless I follow him in his wild goose race And first saith he I expected some plain Scripture 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onely that can prove the repeal of any part of his word and mens reasonings may as likely prove vain in this as any thing if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture And 2. because I deal with those men that call for plain Scripture proof of infant baptism from us therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. T. to bring some word of God to prove the repeal of infants Church-membership But what text do you think he brought In his publike dispute he never offered to name one text nay in his sermon which he preached after upon deliberation he never offered to name one text in all the Bible to prove that God hath repealed infants Church-membership Is not this enough to make his cause suspicious Nay I am confident he cannot bring one text for it Answ. And I have long expected from Mr. B. some plain Scripture in which I might see any such Law or Ordinance distinct from Circumcision for infants visible Church-membership and admissâ—on which I might consider whâ—ther it be repealed or noâ— or capable of a repeal or not 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onely that can prove such a law and mens reasonings as it will appear in the examining them Mr. Bs. are may as likely prove as vain in this as any thing if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture And 2. because I deal with those men particularly Mr. B. that pretend plain Scripture proof for infants Church membership and Baptism but to those that justly call for such bring no express precepâ— or example of infants baptism in the N. T. which alone can be counted plain Scripture pâ—oof in this thing but consequences from Circumcision and the Jewish church-Church-state which have no validity but on the grant of such suppositions as are false yea in these mens disputes against Papists and Prelates and others are rejected and yet they are so extreme blinde as to think and so impudent as to bear the people in hand these are plain Scripture proofs of infants Church-membership and Baptism And therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. B. to bring me some word of God for such a law But what text do you think he brought In his publike dispute he never once offered to name one text nay in his Praesest morator sect 6. printed some few years after upon deliberation he brings none though pressed by me in my Praecursor Nevertheless sith M. B. forceth me to it I determine as I have done to others so to siâ—â— Mr. Bs. allegations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He goes on in his venemous way thus What if Mr. T. should use Magistrates as he doth infants as former Anabaptists have done hath he not as good ground and would they take it well May he not as well say when I shew him Scripture in the old Testament for Magistrates in the Church and being Gods people that it was from the peculiar state of the Jews God hath set up no Magistrates of Christians in the Church now would not our Magistrates bid him bring some Scripture to prove the repeal or else they shall take their old Testament Commission for currant and let him bring me any more Scripture to prove the repeal of infants visible Church-membership then is brought to prove the repeal of Magistrates in the Church if he can O how just is it with God that those Magistrates who favour countenance and cherish those men that would keep all Christians infants out of the Church should by the same men be put out themselves both of Church and State Answ. What Anabaptists in former times did or held it is hard to say sith we have the narration of their facts and tenents onely from their adversaries Notwithstanding Augustines reckoning Jovinian among heretiques and Hieromes invectives against Vigilantius yet learned Protestants have excused or defended both Dr. Reynold Conference with Hart ch 5. div 3. Jewels defence of the Apol. Field of the Church book ch 30 31. Cracanthorp vindic Eccl. Anglic. contra Spalat Andr. Revet sum contr tom 1. quest 1. c. Mr. B. himself would not pass without a deep censure if the writings of Mr. Crandon Mr. Eyre Dr. Kendal c. should bee taken for good proof of his tenets It is much harder and indeed a most injurious thing that the conceived opinions and practises of men of former times should be charged on Antipaedobaptists now who do disclaim them And as for this spiteful passage of Mr. B. though I have said enough to answer it in the 2d part of this Review sect 3. yet I add That I have not so good ground to deny Christian Magistracy as infants visible Church-membership that I have Scripture to prove the repeal if it must bee so called of the pretended visible Church-membership of infants which was onely in the Jewish national Church now dissolved and another frame erected by Christ but not so of the Magistracy which was not proper to the Jewish people Melchisedech was a King Job was a Magistrate Job 29 c. Civil Magistracy as the power of Parents and Masters are of the law of nature and nations Christ and his Apostles did not alter the state of Magistracy but left them as they found them and confirmed them sundry converted Governours kept their place after conversion buâ— the visible Church-membership of infants was onely in the Jewish Church the frame of which is quite altered by Christ and his Apostles and not the least hint given of any infants being in or solemn admission into the Christian visible Church but much to the contrary in the new Testament We keep infants out of the Church no otherwise then Christ and his Apostles did and if Magistrates do favour countenance and cherish us in this they do but cherish us in the doing of what the Apostles of Christ did and M. B. that doth animate the Magistrates to molest us and in his 7th humble advice to the Parliament Decemb. 24. 1654. would have us deprived of all Pastoral Cure having the publique maintenance doth shew his minde to persecute us and by his grounds had conceived himself bound in conscience to have dealt so with the Apostles if hee had been in their dayes But O how good is God to us and just to him and such as he is that the madness of such a Balaam is rebuked his advice rejected
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-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
all the nation was 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-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
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-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-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
of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
by a moral or civil action and not by a mere physical action which is unfit to produce such an alien effect and can go no higher then itâ—s own kinde What sense therefore I should put on your words without making them appear unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse I cannot tell For to say It is not a law but legislation is all one as to say It is not the fundamentum but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation or from which it doth result And to say it is an alien physical act which hath no such thing as right for us subject or terminus is to confound physick and morals and to speak the grossest absurdities as to say that the transient fact of eating drinking going building c. do adopt such an one to be your heir I must needs think therefore till you have better cleared your self that you have here quit your self as ill and forsaken and delivered up your Cause as palpably as ever I knew man do without an express confession that it is naught When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmembership needed no revocation forsooth because their Churchmembership was not caused by a law precept promise or covenant but by a transeunt fact then which as you leave it the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this must prove it Which I shall expect when you can prove that you can generate a man by spitting or blowing your nose or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperours Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters which was without promise or precept that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith or precept of accepting that offered mercy entering into Covenant and re-ingaging them to God which are the promise and precept Mr. B derives their visible Church-membership from Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes in that they were visibly a part of that people who were Gods Church So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite 1. that God should make that people hâ—s Church this he did by the transeunt fact described 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that people this he did by their bringing into the world ranking them among his people so as that they were discernable by their birth nursing circumcision habitation genealogy and such other signes to bee part of that Church Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visibility in the relations 1. of a part to the whole 2. of a people that are Gods that is 1. separated from other people 2. called and taken or brought to God These things are done by various acts which I conceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. c. 22. tit 13. Topic. c. 3. tit 14. Stierius part Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause is that which truly flows into the effect and nextly reacheth it by its activity A Moral Cause is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it yet so behaves himself that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise reward or punishment Such are causes applying the agent to the patient counselling commanding perswading exhorting instigating meriting permitting when they might and should binder c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it formally a right to a benefit or a benefit though it may be so consecutively or they may follow on it But it is a complex term noting a state with a douâ—le relation and imports a natural effect or term of action as well if not more then a moral and is from physical as well as moral causes and in infants visible Churchmembership I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such though to the visible Churchmembership of the people or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do concur which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him As for his outcries of grossest absurdities incoherent dreams unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse contemptible arguing obtuse subtility contradictions palpable forsaking and delivering up my Cause generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick I pass by it as being of ill savour hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings and either shew me my errour or discern his own Mr. B. goes on thus In consideration of the 7th Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient fact which you here describe And first of the reason of that name You say that you call it transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future And do you think this the common sense of the word or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand Answ. I do 1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts and yet not eternal Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts of whom I spake are eternal We use saith he to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum Answ. So do I. But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent Answ. Yea and immanent too But use your sence as long as we understand it Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term if you understand it if not I must alter it 2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely past actions which you call transeunt it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years and so did not by your own doctrine make any Churchmembers till the end of those years Answ. It doth but seem so the truth is in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished but that there was an addition till that people came to thei◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature in which respect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact which I hope when he understands it Mr. B. will give me leave to do 3. Saith he But Sir the question is not Whether it were a transeunt fact
yet more advantagious 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity it 's most certain that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nâ—ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency and so Churchmembers And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their owne estate to bee as the parents were even in Gods image Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership it proves not their visible Churchmembership of which onely is the question 2. If it prove a law or ordinance yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question which is not a law or ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be or they shall be so accounted For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onely can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission according to Mr. Bs. own dictates and therefore not de jure onely such 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B asserts 4. If it did yet it onely proves it of the Church by nature which hath a great difference from the Church by grace this being onely by election and calling not by birth 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed then it is in force and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin For man is born according to the law of procreation Gen. 1.28 and if this were the law of nature that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were even in Gods image then still the law of nature continues and so there is no original sin or it is repealed and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts 6. The words God created blessed do note onely a transeunt fact and therefore what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man this passage onely tells what God did but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose Let 's view the next and main Text. The next institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he â—â—ght have done But in grace 〈◊〉 undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conâ—uered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect coâ—quest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womâ—ns seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable oâ— he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars impâ—rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called then infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old strâ—ng and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members because the head is the principal member Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed that not onely in the Church Jewish but in the Christian properly so called the infants of believers by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God should be and be taken to be visible members But that he takes upon him to prove is that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church that it is his mind that he will have infant members all which we might
grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership my answer was That in mercy to the whole catholick Church the Jewish infant Church-membership ceased and therefore the infant visible Churchmembership Jewish in mercy ceased To understand his minor it is to be observed that Mr. B. asserts 1. a law or ordinance of infants visible Church-membership antecedent to that of Circumcision 2. That this is by promise and precept 3. That this infant visible Churchmembership essentially contains a right to Gods soveraignty Christs headship favour protection provision and other blessings due from such a Soveraign and head to his members 4. That this belonged not onely to the infants of the Jewish nation but also of believers in all ages 5. That this mercy belonged to the infants of the believers of the Jewish nation when they were made Christians and so could not be in justice taken from them though the nation of the Jews were broken off for unbelief 6. That in mercy it cannot be said to be taken away without a greater mercy to the infants of believrs in stead of it 7. That the comming of Christ in the flesh the extent of the Church over the world through faith the changing of Churchmembership by birth into that by faith and so making the Church more spiritual is not a greater mercy to the infants of Jew believers in stead of that visible Church-membership 8. That without visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church catholick the infants of Jew believers are in worse case then they were in the Jewish Church national On the contrary I deny 1. such a law or ordinance 2. That the Hebrew infant visible Churchmembership was by promise and precept 3. That this visible Churchmembership contained essentially such a right as Mr. B. asserts though it was a mercy in comparison of the state of other nations yet thereto was annexed a heavy yoke of legal impositions the deliverance from which was a mercy and in this respect it was in mercy not continued to believers infants of the Jewish nation 4. That it belonged to any other infants then of the Hebrew people 5. I assert that when the Jewish nation or Hebrew people were broken off for unbelief in Christ visible Churchmembership of infants was in justice taken away from the whole people and consequently from the infants of Jew believers who were onely visible Churchmembers as a part of that nation yet in mercy to them sith their visible Churchmembership in that nation was dangerous to them yea inconsistent with Christianity the Jewish nation being a rebellious and gainsaying people as it was a mercy for Lot to be in Sodom and he was in justice to the place outed and yet in mercy to himself when it was to be destroyed 6. I assert that it might be truly said that the infant Jewish visible Churchmembership may be said to be taken away in mercy â—rom the infants of believers of that nation though no greater mercy were given to those particular infants of the same kind barely in stead of it 7. I assert that it cannot be said to be taken away in justice from infants of believing Gentiles sith it was never granted to any Gentile nation to be Gods visible Church nor were their infants visible Churchmembers except by proselytism they were incorporated into the Jewish people 8. I assert that the not taking in of believing Gentiles infants into the visible Church Christian was not an act judiciary of God as a Judge but Gods free act of soveraignty changing Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith 9. I assert that the comming of Christ in the flesh and the consequents thereof the breaking down the partition wall taking in the Gentiles by faith c. without taking in infants into the visible Church Christian were greater meâ—cies then the Jewish infant Churchmembership which was clogged with legal burdens and was an imperfect state and did abundantly countervail the Jewish infant visible Churchmembership in the best state of that and did bring as much benefit to infants as that relation did 10. That the infants of believing Gentiles no members of the visible Church Christian are not in worse but beâ—ter condition in respect of any real Evangelical blessing then the Hebrew infants were with their Churchmembership 1. Because the spiritual blessings of regeneration in dwelling of the spirit justification remission of sins adoption Gods favour protection provision eternal life are as much assured to them in infancy without visible Churchmembership as they were with it 2. They do actually enjoy sooner these mercies if in the invisible Church without which none ever enjoyed them and in more ample mâ—nner without Jewish visible Churchmembership then they did with it the spirit being now more powred out the Gâ—spel cleared the Châ—rch enlâ—rged onely legal ceremonies and rest in Canaan witâ— prosperity therein being taken away Mr. B. and the reader hereby may fully understand what I deny and what I grant and how I answer this his petty reasoning without yeelding the cause and when he hath refuted these assâ—rtions leâ— him sing his triumph and not as he vainly and insolently doth afore the victory He adds But yet let us follow it further And 1. what means Mr. T. to talk of mercy to others when our question is Whether it be a mercy to themselves to be unchurched 2. â—y this arguing be may prove any thing almost in the world a mercy For all shall work together for good to them that love God Rom. 8.28 And therefore if I should ask him whether it be in mercy to wicked men that God giveth them over to themselves and at last damneth them Mr. T. may thus answer that it is for it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church that is to other men but what is this to the damned So Mr. T. saith It is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church But what is that to infants who are unchurched Answ. 1. What I mean he may if he please discern by what is here said and in what sense infants may be said to be unchurched and how it may be a mercy to them and others 2. The damnation of themselves cannot be a mercy to wicked men when it is a benefit to the elect because it never produceth them good But the mercy to the catholick Church is a mercy to believers infants 1. in that it frees them from legal burthens 2. in that there is a near capacity and probability of the best good for them remaining in their parents or others godly families He adds And what a strange reason is that of Mr. T. to say It is a mercy because their Churchstate was carnal fleshly and agreeable to their minority but ours is spiritual What is this to them that are put out of that carnal Churchstate and kept out of this spiritual Churchstate too If they had been admitted into this better state as no doubt they are then he had said somewhat Else
the vniversal Church was onely by reason of their membership in the particular and therefore ceased with it And how is this proved Why Mr. T. saith it is so and that is the best proof and all that I could get Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it But I did then think and do still think it so plain that it needed not proof and as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith that every one that is a member of a part is a member of the whole and that the individual Church that then was was broken off for unbelief and I know no visible Church but an individual Methinks it is all one as if I had said the finger is onely a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body the finger ceaseth to be a member But yet M. B. will try whether hee can disprove this any better 1. Saith he I think I have sufficiently proved that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed but onely the accidental ceremonies and the individual Church that then was is broken off for unbelief but the Olive still remained Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish which if broken off though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed and the Olive still remained yet the infant Churchmembership which came onely in with the Jewish national Church might and did cease 2. Saith he If the Jews Church were repealed yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church must prove it well For if I find that they were once in it I need no more proof that they remain in till some one shew me where it is revoked which is not yet done by any that I know of Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church and of the Jews Church which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal is a piece of Baxterian non-sense which I use not That the Jewish Church national is broken off and that churchmembership by birth is altered into churchmembership by faith is so fully proved before sect 50 51 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me that I count it superfluous to add any more If it satisfie not Mr. B. it 's to be ascribed to his pertinacy in his opinion which to be his proper temper I was told long ago and much experience of him by my self and others find to be true 3. Saith he The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher priviledge then our standing or membership in any particular Therefore it will not follow that infants lose the greater because they lose the lesser and that they are cast out of the universal because they are cast out of the particular Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively because the universal comprehend the most excellent part and the rest also but not intensively sith all the excellency may be from one part Christ the head is not the universal body and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ that is hath not more perfection then Christ for all the excellency in all the members is Christs and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher priviledge then in the particular Church yea if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular yet the standing in the particular is a higher priviledge Else why do Ministers exhort men to joyn with some particular Church and to submit to their Pastors is it not for their advantage Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers and those that are separâ—tists from a particular Church and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large and are so members of the universal Church should not think they have a higher priviledge then members of a particular Church If he do he doth wrong them in condemning them and disswading them from that state which is a higher priviledge Much less is it true concerning infants who are not visible Churchmembers but as they stand in the particular Church For they are not by their own profession visible Churchmembers but meerly in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people as God did the Hebrew nation and no other before nor since This is clear if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant this male infant would be no visible Churchmember there being nothing by which he is discernable to sense to be more one of Gods people then another infant though there weâ—e many Churches of Gentiles â—n other places Whereas on the other side if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers remote from any particular Churches I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal though of no particular Whence it follows that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish they lose their standing in the universal 4. Saith he Persons are first in order of nature or time or both members of the universal Church before they are members of any particular So was Noah Loâ— Abraham and all men before Christ and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church and not into any particular It is so with all others It is the general use and nature of Baptism they are baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so into the catholick Church but not into any particular Church If any such thing be it is secondary and accidental and additional and no proper end of Baptism So that it being first in order that we are entred into the visible universal Church it is likely to be of more durable continuance Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism and about the priority in order or time or both according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular I do agree that persons who were visible Churchmembers by their sensible profession of the true God were members of the universal afore they were of the particular But deny this concerning infants for the reason before given 5. Saith he It is no good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the universal therefore this will not prove infants are broke off If a Jew had been forced into a strange countrey yet there both he and his children had been Churchmembers
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
severity intimates an inclination or desire to it which is stopped by a contrary inclination whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will 2. It is falsly supposed as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church-membership were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership iâ— as election to eternal life or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership to wit eternal life out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb are abortives or still born And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists that without his visible Churchmembershâ—p infants are damned 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already freedom from the bondage of the law in the powring out of the spirit in the new Covenant c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church it being not out of any defect of mercy in God or deprivation of mercy to them which they may not have without it but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent but by faith not national but of believers of all Nations 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication admission as I have hitherto conceived it beeing the act of the administratour of baptism according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense that God will baptise some infants with water which is a friâ—olous conceit 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him the conclusion should bee rather that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked then to mercy to the godly and their seed For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives and therefore his inference if there were any force in it would concâ—ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly but the preservation of their livâ—s in common calamities and persecutions which it is certain he doth not but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all Eccles. 9.2 Which things being premised thougâ— the minor of M. â—s first syllogism may be well questioned yet waving it I deâ—y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself as if none could know what he doth not He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus Ch 25. The 20th arg I draw from Deut. 28.4 18 3. Those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their body and of Covenant-breakers it is said cursed shâ—lt thou be in the fruit of thy body thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people and thy eyâ— shall look and â—aâ—l with longing for them c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them for they shall go into captivity The argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine The major is undeniable The minor I prove thus The curse on the children Deut. 28. is that they go into captivity Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were or if they were not yet it was no worse then this To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement Therefore to bee out of the Church is a greater judgement which I must take for granted having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out Answ The minor of the first and secâ—nd syllogism are both denied For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse yet to be put out doctrinally that is to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all neither is it to be so any judgement spiritual or bodily nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain Another argument saith hee this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body now GOD doth not curse the faithful but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST though corporal afflictions are left But I must haste Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him and curses on them and theirs if they fell off from God the curses are for
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâ—ents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâ—g 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â— no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
state out of which they were once cast but they were not cast out of the Church invisible not out of election and justification but out of a visible Churchstate and fellowship Breaking off as Mr. T. well saith is the same as casting away and reconciliation the same as ingraffing Their reconciliation or ingraffing is then into that condition from which they were broken out of which they were cast now they were cast out of the Church visible not out of the Church invisible when they were in a Churchstate they were nigh unto God Deut. 4.7 Psal. 148.14 Ephes. 2.17 Their reconciliation brings them into the same Churchstate which is a reconciliation gradual not total Answ. The casting away v. 15. is the same with the casting away v. 1 2. which is opposite to Gods fore-knowledge v. 2. to the election of grace v. 5. which obtained and the castaway were hardned or blinded v. 7 8 9 10. which he that understands of any other casting away then from the grace of election and effectual calling and the invisible Church seems to me to pervert the Apostles meaning very grosly Nor do I conceive it any absurdity to say that the Jewish people in Pauls time were broken off or cast away from that election and state in the invisible Church which they never had in their own persons but their ancestors had and they in course had obtained but for their unbelief As for the reconciliation in all places where he mentions it in his Epistles hee means it of that reconciliation which is by effectual conversion and justification through Christs death on which followes salvation Rom. 5.10 11. 2 Cor. 5.18 19 20. Col. 1.22 and not of Mr. Bls. gradual reconciliation of which hee hath not brought one instance for the use of the word in his sense nor is his example any thing like to the business in hand For it was not a reconciliation so as to bring them to the priviledges of a visible Churchstate but so to pardon the sin of worshipping the golden Calf as not utterly to destroy that people though the sinners fell in the Wilderness which was onely an abatement of punishment not an estating in priviledges as Mr. B. would have it But Mr. Bl. to my urging any one to shew mee in Scripture or any approved Protestant Writer such use of the word reconciliation as his is and my alledging Protestant approved Writers for my exposition thus saith 1. When Mr. T. pleaseth hee can heap up phrases which are onely once used in a select sense in Scripture and that to uphold his interpretation of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 when the context clearly evinces the contrary But that this is false and that the text clearly evinceth my interpretation is fully proved in the first part of this Review Section 22 c. Secondly saiâ—h hee Master T when hee pleases dare undertake the defence of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists and as unanimously opposed by Protestants as in that of Covenant holiness But this also is another of Master Bls. calumnies and unbrotherly taunts which hee frequently useth instead of answers and if there had been in him any candour of minde towards mee he had been satisfied with my answer in my postscript Sect. 13. But sith hee writes against me in a Cynical humour I pass by his snarlings and leave the cause to the Lord. Thirdly saith he Gomarus Tâ—m 1. p. 111. observes that world is taken in thaâ— sense in Rom. 11.12 15. as in no other Scripture But I think this is not true it is taken in the same sense 1 Tim. 3.16 and I think 2 Cor. 5.18 19. 1 Joh. 2.2 Fourthly saith he if recontiliation in no other place be so used yet little is gained seeing as wee have seen there are paralel phrases that hold out the same thing to us Answ. 1. Those paralel phrases were never yet seen by me 2. The thing is gained which is here contended for if reconciliation still signifie total reconciliation in the Scripture when it speakes of Gospel reconciliation and there is no cogent reason to move us to recede from that sense here and reconciliation be the same with ingraffing surely ingraffing is by giving faith according to election and the Church into which the ingraffing is is the invisible Mr. Bl. produceth a speech of Ravanelius which I have not for his sense But the words as hee produceth thâ—m seem not to mee to have that sense which Mr. Bl. alledgeth them for but rather my sense and a passage in the Annotations and another in Dr. Featley the Author of them on those Epistles But in neither doth Dr. Featley say by the reconciliation to God Rom. 11.15 is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Churchstate and by câ—sting away and breaking off a loss of visible priviledges nor do Peter Martyr or Eucâ—r say so And however I finde Protestant Writers do expound the ingraffing and breaking off in many of their writings of the visible Church yet those speeches which I alledged out of Mr. Ball and Dr. Ames are full to prove the reconciliation Rom. 11.15 to be saving and they that understand by breaking off there more then the loss of visible priviledges may notwithstanding Mr. Bls. censure without any shift in that point be acquitted from Arminianism My third arg was from v. 20. ingraffing must be by giving faith because it is by faith that the branch stands in the tree To this Mr. S. and Bl. both answer by granting the conclusion that it is by giving faith But this faith Mr. S. makes profession of faith Mr. Bl. a faith of profession To which I reply 1. If it were faith professed by which the branches stand in the tree yet infants are excluded from being of the branches for they stand not by faith professed 2. That it is not profession of faith or faith barely dogmatical which is meant Rom. 11.20 I prove 1. thus That standing which is a perseverance unto salvation is not by bare profession of faith but true justifying faith But the standing Rom. 11.20 is that standâ—ng which is a perseverance unto salvation ergo The major is manifest for it is not a bare profession of faith whereby a man perseveres to salvation but that which is justifying The minor is plain from the text The standing which is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity is standing by perseverance unto salvation This I presume will be yeilded direct opposite termes being according to Logick rules to bee understood in a direct opposite sense But the standing Rom. 1â— 20 is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity vers 2â— Ergo. 2. The standing which was to bee prevented by beeing not high minded but fearing and the losing of which was to bee feared is not a bare standing in the visible Church nor by bare profession of faith But the loss of the standing was to be feared and to be prevented by not being high minded but fearing
the ingraffing of the Gentiles What hee saith yet they shall be ingraffed as a visible Church and this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church taking as reduplicatively cannot bee true for then every visible Church should have all in it saved and for the reasons he brings to prove they are answered before the fathers are nor mentioned as roots but Abraham who is a root not of the visible Church aâ— such but of the invisible of true believers and they are ingraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church Mr. Bl. saith This arg well husbanded might have made three to the first I say that a Churchstate in Scripture phrase is salvation Job 4.22 seeing Churchmembers are partakers of saving ordinances And the fruition of ordinances under Gospel dispensations is a great salvation Heb. 2.3 And so that text Rom 11.26 And so all Israel shall be saved must be understood as I told Mr. T. p. 67. of my answer out of the last annotations and so Diodate Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26 All Israel shall bee saved that is they shall be in a visible Churchstate partakers of saving outward ordinances under Gospel dispensations But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning they shall be saved that is they shall be in such an estate in which they may bee damned and in which many are damned or that God where hee mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel means no more but such an estate Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10 c. Heb. 10.16 17. to have a meer visible Churchstate I did alwayes think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ thâ—t the Ministery thereof was of the spirit 2 Cor 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. not of a meer visible Churchstate And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted as Mr. â—l saith Isai. 59.20 Jerem. 31.34 there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them which is sure much beyond a visible Churchstate As for what he brings out of Scripture it is shamefully wrested For Joh. 4.22 a meer visible church-Church-state is not termed salvation but whether by it bee meant by a metonymy the doctrine of salvation or the authour of salvation Christ himself it is certainly another thing then a meer visible Churchstate yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a meer visible church-Church-state salvation and false to say thaâ— the visible Churchstate was of the Jewes And for the other text â—eb 2.3 it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel dâ—spensations great salvation but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 declared and offered in the Gospel Diodati annot on Heb. 2. â— So great namely everlasting redemption revealed and communicated by the Gospel and implâ—citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26 by put into the way of salvation yet they do not restrain this to a meer visible Churchstate yea both add that by all Israel may be understood the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 of Jews and Gentiles which is the invisible Church And Diâ—son thus parapâ—raseth the words And so all Israel that is the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted And Piscator in his Scholie The fulness of Israel shall be saved to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel is not to be extended to each but to be understood of the greatest part from which the denomination is wont to be made Mr. Bl adds And such men brought into a Churchstate are turned from iniquity partially from their former way of iniquity their contradicting and blaspâ—eming having escaped the pollution of the world 2 Pet. 2.6 of the world â—hat remains out of the Church of God Answ. 1 Were this the meaning yet infants should be excluded who are not thus turned 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant is manifest in that the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodlinesses that is all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob that is as Piscator in his scholie by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Sion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns Acts. 3.26 which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning More rightly Diâ—son thus paraphraseth the words He foretelleth that so it should be that the true redeemer should free his nation from the guilt and servitude of sin the iniquities of that people being pardoned and that it should be that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin But saith Mr. Bl. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc and when Moses prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel Exod. 32. and God promiseth it 2 Chron. 7.14 it is so to be understood of a national pardon Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin and releasing onely of some particular evil cannot be meant Rom. 11.26 27. sith it is a taking away of their sins by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Sion and according to Gods Covenant to them which 1. the same with that Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12 10.16 17. in which eternal redempâ—ion and inheritance are assured Heb. 9.12 15. I grant it shal be a nationaâ— pardon understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation but different from the pardon obtained by Moses Exod. 32. or promâ—sed 2 Chron. 7.14 To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites but none of the re-ingraffed Mr. Bl. replies The re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes and therefore were hypocriâ—es and formalists and the ingraffed such as might fall which is not spiritual Israel but carnal But the Text doth not say the Jews shall be re-ingraffed in their shead that sell away by multitudes but onely that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive in stead of the Jews broken off v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-ingraffed when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and both be ingraffed together not the one broken off to make room for the other as in the calling of the Gentiles v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith how doth it follow the re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes Ergo the re-ingraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites I conceive it follows rather on the contrary those that fell away were hypocrites therefore they that are ingraffed in their stead are living branches
the practise of the Gospel worship but onely baptized And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction why I have said so much the reason is given sect 77. SECT LXXXIII Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. M. in his 4th conclusion would have it IN the Defence of his 4th and 5th concl against my Examen Mr. M. saith he will contract and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed as I answered in examining his 4th concl but would have it added that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it which I have refuted Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant he censures this as pure Anabaptism leaving out injuriously my limitation to all that were circumcised which if fairly added had cleared me and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted Mr. M. p. 180 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant denies that Ishmael had no part in it when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant which is all one with that which I say that the Covenant of grace was not made to them they had no part in it For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made and have part in it are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant or else God keeps not his promise and for this I bring Gen. 17.19 20 21. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. though I needed not having Mr. Ms. own confession and therefore it is most false he saith I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech that Ishmael had part in the Covenant in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it to have his heart circumcised and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19 20 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant it runs upon this palpable mistake that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him 2. Those that were uncircumcised all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant to be holy to believe yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words not rightly set down my words were not right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason I added and adequate why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was Gods or mans If he mean it was Gods to command it it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised if mans motive it is false whether we understand it of â—he circumcised who were infants and therefore had no motive to it but were passive onely or the circumciser for in â—brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant and a vâ—sible â—â—anding in the Church though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting Were his answer granâ—ed yet it proves not the contrary to my speech but confirms it though this point be one of the hinges on which his first main argument turns For iâ— it be true that the adequate reason oâ— peâ—sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant but Gods precâ—pt onely then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument fâ—lls to the ground All that are in the covenant are to be sealed it being onely true thus All in the Covenant whom God haâ—h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed What he saith after that I grant what is in controversie because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified it is alike frivolous it being never in controversie but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect and never sanctified That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity Rom. 4.11 12. whose scope say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th position p. 65. rightly in that place is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males That which he saith that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision I conceive false For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism which they might receive of men yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins justification adoption salvation which are onely from God and onely true believers had right to That which he saith p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state not in reference to their civil state is not true but said upon a mistake as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth That which he confesseth that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision but the command of God and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism this is no good argument they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute But he adds The Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to and this fully answers the objection for it was
If this were Mr. Ms. meaning Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves for they did uncircumcise themselves but shewed that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac But saith Mr. M. I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in instead of the Jews who were broken off they were under the outward administration visible professours had an external calling which is Gods act though a common one To which I reply 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the ingraffed Gentiles they were elect and true believers if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasie is asserted 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau nor their visible profession whatever it were was Gods act which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace 3. What external call which should be Gods act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned from which Ishmael and Esau fell I understand not 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms Gods act though a common one sure I am Mr. M. hath not shewed nor can shew that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace which I said truly nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these and the objection still stands good persons were to bee circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods Covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace but onely the will and command of God to have it so SECT LXXXIV The enlargement of our priviledges proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th conclusion would have it MR. Ms. 5th Conclusion was The priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration For examining of which I set down something about priviledges which Mr. M. grants and saith what 's all this to the purpose I reply I told him it was to uncover the ambiguity of his speeches in which all the strength of his conclusion lay To what I said that if he meant his conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the Covenant of grace it is to be denied Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration I granted it hee answers 1. if this were granted it hurts not him it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children To which I reply that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends For if the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles then no priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged for all the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it and to true believers or elect onely the visible membership and initial seal contended for were no priviledges of the Covenant of grace nor such as all believers could claim for their children they were personal priviledges to the Church of the Jews and belonging to that administration as Mr. Ms. phrase is or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people out of special ends and respect to that people of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and consequently by denying those priviledges we deny no priviledges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away it follows it is more comfortable to us that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grosly mistake as if Circumcision did belong to Jewes and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace which neither is nor ever will be proved 2ly Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to pass that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it as more honourable then the priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ but say that the promises of the new Covenant which is the Covenant of grace are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which was the Covenant of works Thirdly saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearness but in greater abundance I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable then a little grace Answ. It is but yet not priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace but to use his phrase from the administration in respect of which I granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honourable But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their infants were under it as well as themselves yeild that for ours and the controversie is ended Answ. The yeilding that the priviledges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged more honourable and more comfortable in respect of the administration will not serve Mr. Ms. turn except it be yeilded of this particular that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Churchmembers and to be entred by Baptism as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision which would indeed end the controversie if yeilded but was not so by me who granted priviledges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration because the preaching of the Gospel which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administred is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jewes and more honourable
of the Covenant which ours have not Answ. I still avouch it in the sense the phrase seems to be taken for being Jewish visible churchmembers and to be circumcised but what he adds which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us is manifestly false it being never so much as questioned by me He adds May not I boldly say that once the infants of all covenanters had this priviledge Answ. No. May I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away Answ. It hath been often shewed infant-male circumcision in the Synod Act. 15.24 28. infants churchmembership Matth. 28.19 were taken away of which there is enough said before sect 50 c. where infant visible churchmembership is proved to be altered and yet infants not expunged out of the Covenant of the Gospel as Mr. M. suggests On the contrary Mr. Ms. conceit as if the denying them visible churchmembership and baptism were putting them out of the Covenant of grace I intimated to come too near the Popish opinion of the necessity of infants baptism to their salvation which I thought worth answering sith it is all one in my conceit to say that by denying baptism to them we put them out of the Covenant and to say we damn them it being certain none are saved but those who are in the Covenant of grace To that which he saith of our doctrine bringing discomfort to parents in that we leave their infants in the state of infidels account them actually to belong to the visible Kingdome of the Devil deny them the benefit of the promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed acknowledge no more promise for them then for the children of Turks I answer these are meer calumnies sufficiently discovered to be so Exam. par 2. sect 10. Apolog. sect 14. SECT LXXXV Mr. Cobbers dictates Just. Vindic. par 2. ch 1. touching childrens baptismal right are examined and refelled MR. Cobbet Just. vindic par 2. sect 1. sets down this as his position That the initiatory seal follows the covenant but he proves it not And whereas to the objection against it that from Adams time to Abrahams there was no initiatory seal to those who were in Covenant nor in Abrahams time to Melchizedek Lot Job he answers That such extraordinary cases and times are very impertinently urged by some to infâ—ringe the force of ordinary rules and principles I say his answer is insuffâ—cient For 1. this onely is an answer where it is proved that there is such an ordinary rule and principle from which these cases swerve But no such rule or principle can be shewed of an initiatory seal belonging to persons in Covenant from which this should be counted an exception therfore this is not an extraordinary case 2. Besides extraordinary cases make a just exception from an ordinary rule for some by reason of some peculiar accident not happening to others But to all in Covenant from Adam to Abraham there is not nor can be shewed any such peculiar accident which happened not to others which was the reason of omitting an initiatory seal by those in Covenant Ergo it was not because of extraordinary cases that it was omitted but because there was no such rule 3. Extraordinary cases are few and rare but the omission of an initiatory seal was constant and universal by those in Covenant until Abrahams time therefore it was not an extraordinary case 4. Extraordinary cases and times are but for a little while But this omission was for above 2000. years which me thinks Mr. C. should not so dote as to count an extraordinary time sure the time wherein Circumcision was in force was shorter and it was in that time often omitted and therefore we may by Mr. Cs. dictates as well say the initiatory seal was extraordinary and the ordinary rule was that those in Covenant were not to have an initiatory seal specially considering that even in Abrahams time and after it was omitted by Melehizdek Lot Job Nor is it of any weight to say that there was not a visible political Church then For. 1. no doubt in their families were visible political Churches as well as in Abrahams 2. The initiatory seale as they call it might and was to be to persons without a visible political Church as to the Eunuch Acts. 8. to Moses children in Midian c Nor is it of any weight to say these Churches were not to continue For 1. that is not so certain as to be taken for granted 2. Abrahams posterity were not to continue still the Church of God though they were to continue longer then the posterity of Jâ—b and Lot 3. But if this were a sufficient reason why they should not have an initiatory seal solemnly instituted for them because they were not sucessively to continue then should not the Churches which were not successively to continue of which doubtless there were many from whom the Candlestick was quickly removed have had baptism instituted for them 4. By Mr. Cs. reasoning his rule the initiatory seal followes the covenant must bee thus limited in ordinary times and cases when and where there is a visible political Church which is successively to continue Which if it were granted him yet it will never serve his turn to prove this universal proposition from which Paedobaptists infer infant Baptism All that are in the covenant are to have the initiatory seal or to be baptized But neither is it true in ordinary times where there is a visible political Church successively to continue For it is not true of those in Covenant in Abrahams house neither the females nor males of seven dayes old onely were to have the initiatory seal though in Covenant To that which is said that the females had not a superfluous foreâ—skin besides what hath been said before to the contrary I say 1. this however infringeth Mr. Cs. rule that in ordinary times in visible political Churches successively to continue the seal initiatory follows the covenant for it doth not so in the female Hebrews 2. If Gods will had been as Mr. C. would have it he could have appointed an initiatory seal common to females with males But what saith M. C. to the instance of the males of 7. days only to infringe his rule I find nothing except this be an answer in that case of the females as in some other that law of circumcision had something peculiar in it albeit it had other things in common with that of Baptism which I take to be a sufficient proof against him that the rule of Circumcision is not a rule to us about Baptism and that his proposition is not true that in ordinary times and cases respecting the political visible Church and its administrations such little ones as are of parents in such visible church-church-state they have external right unto the injoyned initiatory visible seal of which they are outwardly capable and ought not to be denied the use and benefit of it There
Servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined and it is shewed that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt covenant Sect. 5. Acts 2.38 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between iâ— and â—aptizability Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josiaâ— Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism â—om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered Sect. 7. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize Sect. 8. Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to bee of the visible Church Christian. Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship intitles them not to baptism Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justifie infant baptism and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shewed to be null Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham Mr. Brinsley Mr. Hall and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined and it is shewed that interest in the covenant did not intitle to circumcision nor is it proved it doth now to baptism Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons the Assembly's and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed Sect. 19. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind faed ch 42. sect 3. Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Reviewâ—gainst â—gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and seal are vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic fâ—d ch 37 43. Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch 2. part 1 of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain and mine justified Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between Covenant interest and Baptism right and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39 in his Exercitation ch 5. are considered Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self-justitiaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vind faed ch 26. Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abrahams seed and in Covenant is shewed Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54 55. 19.9 Joh 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 1â— 29. 4.28 Rom 9.6 7 8. Matth 3.9 that the seed of Abraham to whom the proâ—ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are onely true believers oâ— elect persons Sect. 29. The allegaâ—ion of Rom. 9 6.7 8. Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical belongâ— are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic faed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Eâ—ercitation ch 6. Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion the ambiguity of which is shewed Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace and the several sealings of them Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part 4. sect 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing are made good against Mr. Marshal and Mâ— Blake Sect. 33. That it is no error as Mr. Baxter calls it but a truth that the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism Sect. 35. My speech about Gods sealing to none but believers is cleered from Mr. Baxters objections Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth nor the Church as civil corporations Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace Sect. â—7 That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an external priviledge of visible Churchmembership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. Marshal asserts Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic sect 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external priviledges of the Covenant of grace are refeâ—led Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect 4th of the same chapter whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect 5. of the same ch shewing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in Gods Covenant is not the rule of baptizing Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect 7â—h of the same ch 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 Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th sect of the same ch in which
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-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-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-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
covenant were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration or the Church in Abrahams family then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers but something proper to that church-Church-state or administration which is now voided if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized because they must join to the new administration of the covenant then according to Mr. Gerees own confession according to the new administration of the Covenant faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes we may therefore conclude that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it have right to the seal of initiation under that administration unless they be particularly excluded by God himself and so the major is firmly proved I may truly say it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration barely from the Covenant without a command and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession without faith and repentance and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing Let 's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor SECT XVI That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such NOw the Minor saith he that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned as first Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider What the privilege is that is here promised 2. what the extent of it is First for the privilege it self as Calvin hath well observed by vertue of this promise the Church was settled in Abrahams family and it was separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness And the people of Israel Abrahams posterity was the house and sheepfold of God And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption And so though by nature they were no better than others yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege whereby they were separated from others which is apparently held forth Gal. 2.15 We who are Jews by nature not sinners of the Gentiles as Mr. Blake hath truly observed And sith you grant the Jews a birth-privilege as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs Matth. 15.26 there were some that were separated by the secret election of God and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace and so not only adopted outwardly and reputatively but also really in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of as no sons of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles they are so stiled Matthew 8.11 12. So then the privilege is that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privileges of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Answ. It is true I granted page 78. of my Examen that the Jews had a birth-privilege yet denyed it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it as Mr. M. speaks but that special love God bare to Abrahams posterity Nor do I deny that the people of Israel till broken off were in common estimation Gods children children of the Kingdom nor Dogs nor unclean as the Gentiles and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination really to the elect Nor do I much gainsay that by vertue of the promise I will be a God to the seed of Abraham the Church was settled in Abrahams family though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise but expresly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise to the children of the flesh Rom. 9.8 And his doctrine there is plain that the elect are they only to whom the promise I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 was made yea Exercit. page 2 3. I expound the promise as in respect of some peculiar blessings belonging to Abrahams natural seed Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text to wit Jews by nature which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blakes Reply Vindic. foed cha 35. in that which followes But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor To children meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular of believing Christians the Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Is this the Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly but not really adopted Is this that which circumcision did seal Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow What kind of juggling is there with these men They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance and that they make to consist in saving graces the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was they will not have it called a mixt covenant and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11 and they say this was made to believers and their seed and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased and they argue they are to have the seal because they are in covenant which if they understand not of that covenant of which that ordinance is the seal what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant which it doth not seal Their argument is He hath right to the Conveyance who hath right to the Land but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces though perhaps a very few and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant onely because a promise of
his defence in the third part of it referring the Reader to what of that or any other is already dispatched taking in somewhat of Master Blakes and some others by the way and then to examine such parts of Mr. Cobbets Iust Vindication as are not yet examined so far as I find necessary and at last examine so much of Mr. Bs. dispute about his second argument as is not yet dispatched SECT XVIII Mr. Marshalls reply to the first section of the third part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed MR. M. in his Sermon page 8. thus disputed My first Argument is this The infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of grace Therefore are to partake of the seal of the Covenant To this I answered by denying both the antecedent and the consequence and first I disputed against the consequence Exam. part 3. s. 1. Mr. M. in his Reply would have the Reader to consider my advantage from the much silence in the Scripture to make my work have a specious probability that the like specious plea might be made against the justification of infants especially if his dispute should be carried as mine is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing Thus what others have counted my vertue and have commended beyond what it is fit for me to express Mr. M. unjustly seeks to draw into suspition as if there were sophistry and guile in it as he did in other things as I shew in my Apology But me thinks a considerate Reader should take this to be the course of a diffident man If there be much silence in Scripture about infants why do Mr. M. and others avouch their baptism with so much peremptoriness If their justification could be no better proved then their baptism it would be no article of my faith My disputation is carried in that way which is used by Disputants that examine writings Scholastically wherein it is defective Mr. M. should shew That I made exceptions against arguments was agreeable to my work being to answer as Mr. M. was to prove no man is to expect regularly any more of a Respondent Yet that I positively affirm nothing is an untruth with a witness yea in many points where it was not necessary I positively set down my tenet and my proofs and answer objections to the contrary The resolving questions about baptism how it should be could not reasonably be expected in my Examen 2. Mr. M. takes on him to prove his consequence by mine own principles to wit that I yield that such as are regenerate sanctified c. may be baptized which he saith is in plain English that such as are covenanters ought not to be denyed the initial seal of the covenant But I do not think the speeches the same either in plain English or Mr. Ms. own English or mine Not in plain English In plain English a Covenanter is one that makes a promise Is a Scottish Covenanter any other then one that makes a promise or subscribes to the Covenant But a person regenerate or sanctified may make no promise nor do I think when Mr. M. calls infants federate or in the Covenant of grace he means they make a promise but that a promise is made to them Nor in Mr. Ms. own English For when he saith they are in covenant he means infants are in some sense under the covenant of grace in respect of the outward administration and Church privileges which is not all one as to be regenerate sanctifyed c. nor in my English For the being in covenant which I grant gives a title to baptism is meant of their present state so as that not only the promise is made to them what God will do for them afterwards but for the present they are actually sanctified regenerate believers disciples as mine own words cited by Mr. M. shew So that Mr. M. doth but abuse me and the Reader endeavouring to possesse him with this conceit as if his consequence were proved by mine own principles But Master Marshall not trusting to this answers more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seal the addition of a seal to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self Which if true then there 's no necessary connexion between the Covenant and Seal and so this proposition is not true All that have the promise are to be sealed For if it be true it is in some degree of necessity to wit de omni As for his reason it is frivolous there is no necessary dependance because both are of free grace For those things that are of free grace have a necessary dependence as to be predestinate called justified glorifyed But he means the nature of the terms makes not a necessary connexion between them If that be his meaning Mr. Baillee his Collegue is deserted who would infer a necessary connexion from the nature of the terms which I have refuted in my Addition to my Apology S. 3 But Mr. M. addes Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must be sealed I carried it no higher than Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant Answ. If this be true then there is nothing moral and perpetual in seals as they call them of the Covenant For such thing are from the beginning and belong to Gentiles as well as Jews and therefore it is in vain to derive infants sealing barely from the Covenant of grace For sith that as Mr. Ms. first Conclusion speaks for substance hath alwaies been one and the same both to the Jews and Gentiles if there were a connexion between it and the seal it should have been as well before Abrahams time as since But he thinks in his third answer to make good the connexion when he saith And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant supposing them only capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself To which I answer He saith after if you please to state the general Proposition as you needs must That all who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation So that one of these two propositions is that which makes up his Enthymeme an entire syllogism and his syllogism must stand in one or other of these forms From Abrahams time all such as are in covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the covenant supposing them onely capable of
promise to which baptism the seal is annexed now the seal is ever to the covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to benefits contained in promises by his coming Ans. Had Master Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sins by him was yet to them and their children c. And pag. 61. The promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might be turned from their iniquity and baptized in his Name for the remission of their sins these objections had been spared they proceeding all against me upon this mistake which my words heeded might have rectifyed as if I had expounded the promise Acts 2.39 of Christs being sent and coming without some promise annexed and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ Whereas I did expresly include it in my paraphrase as my words recited shew gathering it from the mention of it v. 38. and conceiving it to be implyed in the expression to you v. 39. that is for your benefit by remission of your sins And therefore these three objections are answered by shewing how according to my exposition the promise of Christ sent includes also the benefit of remission of sins But on the contrary all these objections are against Master Cobbets own exposition For 1. It had been but cold comfort to tell them of a promise of remission of sins onely in external right and administration 2. It had not been available for their reviving healing succour and support 3. According to Paedobaptists suppositions baptism is not a seal of that covenant in which remission of sins in external right and administration onely is promised but as it is in the Directory it is a Seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternal Therefore the promise Acts 2.39 according to Master Cobbets own arguments and Paedobaptists hypotheses is not of remission of sins onely in exâ—â—rnal right and administration Master Cobbets third exception Sect. 3. about those afar off whether Israelites in the dispâ—rsion or in after ages or the Gentiles be meant hath been considered before But whereas he saith The Apostles afore Peter Sermon Acts 10. knew by Christs declaration of his minde to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchuâ—ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches his speech is not right For 1. Though it is true Christ had declared his minde Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 about conversion of the Gentiles yet either Peter understood not Christs minde or did not remember it afore the vision Acts 10.2 It is apparent from Acts 11.3 that the exception against Peter was not for that he had gathered Cornelius and his company into a distinct Church and not joyned them as Proselytes to the Jewes but that he went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them which shâ—wes they held it unlawfull so much as to preach and converse with any uncircumcised though he were a proselyte of the gate as Cornelius appears to have been As for not joyning the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jewes they knew that well enough that they were not to be so joyned sith neither John the Baptist nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism joyn any as proselytes to the Jewes but did take even the Jewes themselves who embraced their Doctrine into distinct Churches or Schooles though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths as the nation of the Jewes was Master Cobbet further excepts against me in these words 4. It 's affirmed that this promised of sending Christ was to them their children and those afar off as many as our God should call that they may be turned from their iniquity and be baptized for remission of sins and yet also that the promise what ever it be supposed to be was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may be turned from their iniquity is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may be called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to be called how can these two be right yea it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may be called then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition Ans. the promise is of sending of Christ for remission of sins their calling is a consequent of Christs being sent who was sent to turn them from iniquity that is to call them and this calling was for a further benefit remission of sins through Christ sent and so their calling is a condition of the remission of sins by Christ sent nor is the promise of remission of sins by Christ sent to any but those who are called The calling is a consequent to Christs sending as a prior benefit and an antecedent to remission of sins as a subsequent And thus the knot Master Cobbet conceives is easily loosed SECT XXIII The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between covenant-interest and baptism-right and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers THere are other passages in the following Sections on which I animadvert Sect. 4. he saith Acts 2. he doth not intend it thus your children i. e. Abrahams children for Abraham is considered rather by him as a patern having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned And it had been incongruous to have said It is to your children that is to Abrahams children Concerning which passage I say that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by your children Abrahams children yet Master Cobbets words intimate sundry things which are liable to animadversions 1. The promise Acts 2.39 is supposed by others and by Master Cobbet Sect. 7. to be that Gen 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee but this was the covenant it self and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned I think Master Cobbet cannot shew any other after Copy in which God promised to be the God of a believer and his seed which it is confessed he did to
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-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
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
he to be circumcised and therefore the seal follows not the covenant but the command even where the promise goes before What he adds Else what had become of them if they had died then in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good Rom. 9.6 Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation or about the case of famales or still-born infants Surely he would say God supplies that without means which he bestowes on others by ordinary means and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision To what purpose Rom. 9.6 comes in here I know not This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming To the objection with the Jews the Church and State were the same but not so now Mr. C. thus writes Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order He then kept them severall paling in the Civill State with the Judicials with which the Church as such dealt not but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and word onely in their own Sphears The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers or intruding upon Civil Officers as such as Josh. 9. 16.1 2 Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred 2 Chron. 17.11 Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God the Church was not one body and the State another but all the same persons were of the Church who were members of the Common-wealth he that had the right of a Iew had the right of a Church-member nor were any taken in or cast out of the one but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion but good order was setled kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall or paled in the Civill State with Judicials by which it was divided from the Church In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea as well as between stroak and stroak Deut. 17.8 9. Eli Samuel Iehoiadah judged Israel managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service Nor do I know any such Iudicials but that they did belong to the Church or Priests who were Iudges as well as to the Civill State that is the Princes As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church or Officers of the Church that is Priests and Levits wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word Scandals though we find Princes deposing Priests It is true Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onely in their own Sphears And so had Princes and Souldiers but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew acted Ecclesiastically in their places he mean any other than the Priests and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting the taking cognizance of moral evils and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill I must confess I find not either such Assembly or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord 2 Chro. 19.11 that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct the one in one sort of matters the other in the other As in a Parliament Senate or Council of Lords Bishops Lawyers Souldiers though they sit and act together yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem he instructs them whom they should have there for their help according to the law Deut. 17 8 9 c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum to resolve him in this point What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all serves not Mr C his turn unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace I do not believe What he saith touching Baptism that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts and that it sealeth an infants present federall grace and unto future grace likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally covenant-grace principally is meer fancy without any Scripture which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall of the sealing one grace principally another less principally of sealing an infants present federall grace and unto future grace of baptism sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion That the covenant-interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons SECT XLIV Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25.26 and other places are examined Answ IN my Examen page 51. I said They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not onely to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these add to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed And page 122. It is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace That God wil be
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
determination Gal. 2. 5.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Yea if it had been foretold that the Gentiles should come and joyn themselves to the visible Church Jewish which began in Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Lord Christ had foretold that conjunction which was so far from proving true in the event that they who did come to Christ were persecuted and cast out of that Church Gal. 4.29 1 Thes. 2.15.5 Hence it follows that the children of the Kingdome are not so called because they were in that Kingdome of heaven which is there meant for then they had never been cast out but they are called children of the Kingdome because as Diodati notes by the prerogative of Gods Covenant the Jews seemed to be heirs of this Kingdome or as the new Annot as ch 9.15 who were born of those parents to whâ—m the Kingdome was promised and by vertue of the Covenant Rom. â— 4 it had still belonged to them had they not forfeited it by their unbelief and wickedness Pisch sch Filios verò regni id est Judaeos qui hacteniâ—s per aliquot saecula ad regnum illud coelorum vocati sunt vocantur Beza Annot. Filios regni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id est indigenas quos vocant vulgò naturales subjectos Intelligit autem Dei regnum ad quod pertinebant in generâ— quicunque erant ex Abrahae genere cum longè alia sit ratio coram Deo censendi filios Abrahae nimirùm ex fide So that they were children of the Kingdome not before God in actual title or possession but onely in appearance to men and likelihood considering their descent and the first manifestation of Christ and the Gospel to that people 6. Out of this it appears that a man may be said to be â—ast out of the Kingdome of heaven who was never in actually but onely in possibility according to what was apparent to men and consequently Mr. Bls. propositions are not true in his precedent argument Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant nor the argument good Ishmael was cast out of Covenant therefore once in Nor is it seldome that men are said to be brought up from the grave as Psal. 30.3 and to be redeemed from the grave and hell who were never in but onely in danger of it But Mr. Bl. hath yet a fourth text which was his text in his Birth-priviledge it is Gal 2.15 From whence after some explication given of the text he tâ—us argues That which is a priviledge of nature or birth belongs to the natural issue that cannot be denied But to be in Covenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners is a priviledge of nature or birth therefore this priviledge belongs to the natural issue Ans. To be in covenant with God may be understood either in respect of the Covenant with Abraham Gen 17. or the Covenant at Mount Sinai Exod. 19. To be in the Covenant Gen 17. may be in respect of Evangelical benefits or of domestick and political benefits or priviledges as to bee accounted members of the Israelitish nation and so of that church to have the service of God among them the law among them education under it freedome from idolatry and other pollutions of the Gentiles To be as a people holy may be understood either of holiness by inward sanctification called circumcision of the heart or of outward holiness in being distinguished from other people as set apart visibly for God whether in reputation or truth either by Gods distinction or by an outward signe or by their own profession I grant the minor of being in Covenant either Exod. 19. or Gen. 17. in respect of the domestick and political benefits at least some of them and to be a holy people exceeding others that are without as sinners if understood of outward holiness in reputation or truth by Gods distinction and by the outward signe of Circumcision was I do not grant is a privilâ—dge of nature or birth and accordingly grant the conclusion that this priviledge did I do not say doth belong to the natural issue I do not say to all of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob and was proper to the Jews and no more can be gathered from Gal. 2.15 there 's not a word of the same priviledge as belonging to the natural posteâ—ity of believing Gentiles But the minor is denied if understood of Evangelical benefits and of holiness inward of which alone the question should have been formed his position being in full opposition to my words nor is it proved out of the text himself expounding Jews by nature that is by birth and off spring of a nation that is holy though in themselves sinners reputed an holy people a people by covenant holy to the Lord which they might be though to be in Covenant with God Gen. 17.7 and as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners by inward holiness be not a priviledge of nature or birth But Mr. Bl. thinks my grant involves me in not a few contradictions 1. To what I say Exercit. pag. 3. the natural seed inherit onely domestick and civil benefits But Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth me the word onely is Mr. Bls. addition not mine as the Reader that shall read the words may perceive 2. To what I am wont to deny that birth entitles any to such priviledges as interest in Circumcision and observance of Moses law But this is another of Mr. Bls. forged calumnies let him shew if he can that I say so any where and he deserves some credit if not let him suffer as a Calumniator 3. That I deny the natural seed any promise of spiritual mercies which is another forgery of his like the former 4. That I say this was proper to the Jews in that Church state who had prerogatives peculiar to them And then saith thus And here we urge it no further and it fully concludes Mr. T. in a contradiction that will have the natural seed of Abraham and no other then his spiritual seed to be entituled to such priviledges Here 's more of his forgery that I say no other then Abrahams spiritâ—ul seed are entituled to such priviledges as were proper to the Jews in that Church state who had prerogatives peculiar to them Let him shew any such thing in my writing or let him as he and his fellow Paedobaptist Mr. Robert Baillee who hath in like sort wronged me as they ought testifie their repentance by righting me Otherwise the Lord will to their shame discover their evil dealing iâ— their own conscience be so blinde or so hard as to slight such a sin He concludes thus Any one of these arguments severally much more all â—ointly make good this position that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob are in that great Charter vouchsafed of God taken into Covenant
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
as injurious and pernicious tending to take away that liberty of examining things receâ—ved and to impose on mens consciences new subscriptions and conformities as intollerable as those the Prelates urged and consequently shutting out light from shining and inducing persecution afresh and that he and such as he is who are partial in Gods law prophaning yea quite changing or dissolving the prime solemn ordinance of Christ and opposing contrary to their solemn Covenant the reformation of that abuse should be made contemptible before all the people Mal. 2.9 Mr. B. adds yet in private I confess he cited two texts to prove the repeal of Gods Ordinance and merciful gift that infants should be Church-members and I will read the two places to you which private conference I would not mention but lest it should be thought a wrong to him to overpass his onely proofs The first was Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. when I considered that such a man should deny all infants Church-membership and affirm that God hath repealed that his Ordinance and merciful gift and have no more Scripture for it then such as this and yet be so confident it maketh me amazed Hath he not a good wit that can prove that Christ hath repealed his merciful gift because he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage or that he hath shut out all infants from his Church because he hath delivered them from the inconveniences of their minority If I had no better proof then this for infant baptism I should be ashamed once to open my mouth for it Answ. Had Mr. B. any true love or justice towards me as he seems to have by his pretended loathness to mention my private conference he had not so often and with such false caluâ—niatory inferences mentioned in his writings what past in private conference concerning my censure of mens not receiving the doctrine of Antipaedobaptism my plea for plurality of places c. whereby he hath done what in him lay to defame me as proud covetous schismatical and given over by God to a reprobate minde though there was no necessity of such divulgings But much experience hath taught me to expect no better usage from an intemperate Zelot for his opinion though a pretended friend and seeming godly then from an open enemy Mr. B. is amazed that I alledged Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. as I did and but that I have learned nil admirari of such passages I should be amazed at his dealing with me in setting down my proofs though they were but in a private conference without study The thing of which he urged me to prove the repeal I remember not whether it were of the visible Church-membership of infants or of their admission The latter was it the repeal of which he denied For so was his antecedent By the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church and this is proved plainly from Gal. 4.1 c. that the ordinance of admission which was no other then circumcision of infants is repealed yea if that explication of Beza Legem enim id est totam illam legalem oeconomiam dicit fuisse instar tutoris sive curatoris ad certum tempus dati thus Englished in the New Annot. For hee saith that the law that is the whole Government of Gods house according to the law was as it were a kinde of tutorship or office of an Overseer appointed for a time be right the Church-membership visible of infants which was peculiar to the Jews and belonged to the legal Church-state is plainly limited in that place to a certain time now expired and consequently the ordinance of such Church-membership if there had been such repealed And I say that if he had so good proof for his infant baptism as this is for the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants admission and visible Church-membership unrepealed I would plead for it as he doth But Mr. B. as one that haâ—h a good wit can by his Chymistry prove hence his non repeal Nay saith he I pray you do but consider whether his own proof be not sufficient against him â— Doth not this text plainly tell us that the heir in his minority is Lord of all and so approve of the natural birth priviledge of our children in civil things And will God then deny children to be heirs of any thing and bereave them of their spiritual or Church-priviledge and neither tell us why he doth it nor that he doth it Answ. Gods heirs are but co-heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17. true believers or elect persons who are not deprived by me of any truely so called spiritual Church priviledge The priviledge of infants visible Church-membership as it came with the spiriâ—ual church-Church-state of Abrahams family so it ceased with the dissolution thereof of which God hath given us reason in that it was but for an appointed time by God which as it began with Gods special love to Abraham so it ended upon his loathing his unbelieving posterity and setting his love on the Gentiles Again saith he more plainly if Christ came to free the heir from his bondage and tutorage onely and from the servitude of his minority is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-membership Can any man think that this was any part of the â—ondage require those whose consciences are not wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits to judge of this soberly whether they can possibly think it a bondage to be a member both of the universal Church and of a particular Let them not here tell me that Circumcision was a bondage or that the Law was a Tutor For I speak of none of these but of their being members of the Church of God Answ. Whom Mr. B. means by person whose Consciences are wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits I cannot determine I know few men who give me more cause of fear that they are such then Mr. B. who seems to me to have more conceits and â—ancies then one and those with so much pertinacy and violent zeal promoted as me thinks searce agree to a sober man For my self I say that such a visible Church-membership as the infants of the Jews had in my soberest judgement I not onely can possibly think which Mr. B. himself also may do sith it implies no contradiction but do verily think to have been a part of the imperfect state of the Church and in some respect of the bondage For though Churchmembership be a priviledge of it self yet comparatively and in respect of some consequents attending it as namely subjection to the whole Law of Moses it is a manifest imperfection and bondage As the state of the Apostles was a state of minority bondage imperfection while Christ was on earth in comparison of the estate after his ascension when the spirit was powred out upon them John 16 7. And I doubt not to affirm that Christ
might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream Laws repealeable determine not of essences but things to be existent to wit particular actions to bee done or omitted Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual and so may bee of the existence of a Church yet if God do separate or call by authority preaching power or any other way without a Covenant they will have the essence of a Church The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species but an individual and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature species or essential form of the Church unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong For if so without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church What the priviledges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation as part of that people such inheritance and other benefits in part which their parents had which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off I do not well understand Nor do I know any priviledge which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible which they should have had if they had been taken in For the priviledges of the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members were as I conceive to cease upon the comming of Christ and the erection of the Christian Church not by any punitive execution of a Law but a wise dispensation of God as he conceived fittest for his own glory and the enlarging of the Kingdome of his Son The species as Mr. B. speaks that is the whole order rank series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church but onely the infants of the Jewish Nation Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence but by altering the church-Church-state from Jewish into Châ—istian as God thought best 7. Saith Mr. B. Again you must distinguish betwixt breaking off primarily and morally onely by Covenant breaking and merit as an adulterous woman doth break the marriage bond and so cast out her self or else breaking off in a following act by punishment both morally and physically as a man that putteth away his adulterous wife In the former sence all the Jews that were unchurched did unchurch themselves and their children and God onely unchurched them in the later sence And therefore the children of believing Jews who did not adulterously violate the Covenant were never unchurched God casteth out none but those that first cast out themselves Answ. If this last speech were true absolute Reprobation should be an errour But perhaps he means it of casting out by judiciary sentence and so I grant it true of persons of age But in the present business the leaving out infants out of the visible Church was neither by any sinfull voluntary dissertion or transgression of Gods Law morally deserving it nor by any act of judiciary sentence legally or punitive act executing or physically ejecting But by a free act of his Soveraignty altering the church-Church-state from a more carnal to a more spiritual without any detriment to believers or theit children Mr. B. applies his distinctions thus Let us now review Mr. Ts. arguments 1. He saith their Church constitution is taken down and therefore their membership To which I answer 1. By constitution is meant either the essential nature or some ceremonial Accident And by taking down is meant either by repealing the Law which takes down the wholeâ—species or by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church In the first sence of constitution and taking down I utterly deny the Antecedent and may stay long enough I perceive before he prove it 2. By their membership either he means the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews which I grant or else the whole species of infants which I deny 3. Besides the argument concludeth not for what he should bring it That which it should conclude is that the mercifull gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed This is another thing from what he concludeth Answ. 1. By constitution I neither mean the essential nature nor some ceremonial accident but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley January 1. 1649. that I used the term of taking down but rather the term altered which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shews to have been the term I used And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species nor by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church but by a free act of his Soveraignty as Rector or Lord who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth As when a Lord or Governour one while takes inâ—o his house men and their wives and children another while onely single men he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house but because it likes him better to have his house onely of strong able men alters the state of his house in respect of the members so it is in this case 2. By their Church-membership I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews nor the whole species of infants but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members whether believing or unbelieving 3. If I conclude as I did that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed Let 's view his answer to my proof He proveth saith Mr. B. that their Church constitution is altered because their Church call is altered To which I answer 1. Here is still nothing but the darkness of ambiguity and troubled waters to fish in As we know not what he means by constitution as is said before so who knows what he meaneth by their Church call Is it meant first of Gods Law or Covenant enacting making and constituting them a Church 2. And if so then is it meant of the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. 3. Or is it meant of the lesser additional parts of the Law or Covenant giving them some accidentals of their Church as the land of Canaan the Priesthood the Sacrifice c. 4. Or is it meant of Gods immediate call from heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into the Covenant 5. And if so whether
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
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
Circumcision Nor were the benefits mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. conferred to them as visible Church-members For then all visible Churchmembers had been partakers of the same benefits they had had the Oracles of God committed to them the giving the Law Christ from them after the flesh c. Rom. 9.4 5. which is raise but as to a people specially loved and gratified with these priviledges He adds If Infant-Churchmembership were no benefit then they that had it were not when they came to age or their parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it But they were obliged to be thankful for it Ergo it was a benefit Answ. Visible Churchmembership simply notes onely a state by which was a benefit By the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was a benefit of honour and special dignity above other people which God then vouchsafed to the Jews and doâ—h not so now to infants of believing Christians as such and for it the Jew parents and children were to be thankful He goes on The next thing in the antecedent to be proved is that there was a right conferred to this benefit and some had a right in it And 1. if any had the benefit then had they right to or in that benefit But some had the benefit Ergo. The consequence of the major is certain 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits 2. If any had the benefit of Church-membership Covenant-interest c. without right then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it Not with it For hee is just and consenteth not that any have that which hee hath not some right to or in not without it For no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it 2. If no infants had duely and rightfully received this benefit God would have somewhere reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits But that hee doth not as to this case Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many texts of Scripture of which more afterward Answ. Mr. B. is guilty of that which he chargeth me with unjustly jumbling things together which are to be distinguished visible Churchmembership right to or of visible Churchmembership to the benefits of it duly and rightfully receiving of it The infants of the Jews were visible Churchmembers not by a legal right to it antecedent to their being such visible Churchmembers which they or any for them might claim as due nor was it capable of duly and rightfully being received or usurped For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people who were in appearance from things sensible Gods people and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly to wit his forming them and bringing them into the world and placing them so as to be ranked among his visible people and known by things obvious to sense to be of this people from which this state results without any such receiving as may be denominated duly or rightfully done or usurped Yet I grant they had a right in it that is they had it by Gods donation without any usurpation by them or any other and they had right to the benefit consequent as to the honour and esteem and dignity absolutely and to other benefits if there were any other annexed to it whether absolutely or conditionally Yet to the proofs of Mr. B. I say 1. That it seems to me not true that the nature of the benefit of infants visible Churchmembership consisteth in a right to further benefits 2. That if it were true yet I see not how it proves this consequence If any had the benefit then they had riâ—ht to or in that benefit A man may have a benefit without right though the nature or as I would speak the condition of it be such as to draw with it a right to further benefits as a man may have a Lordship without right which gives him a right to further benefits 3. That Mr. B. jumbles together Churchmembershiâ— Covenant interest c. whereas a person may have no interest in Gods Covenant who is a visible Churchmember and he maâ— have interest in Gods Covenant who is no visible Churchmember 4. His speech God is just and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in as the words seem to import is not right For 1. they intimate aâ— if visible Church-membership were given out of distributive justice which gives to every man his own But this I conceive to be very erroneous For as Regeneration so also visible Churchmembership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord nor of distributive justice by God as a Judge 2. That all that any man hath from God he hath of debt contrary to the Apostle Rom. 4.4 5. That visible Churchmembership is conceived as a thing offered and to be duly and rightfully received or to be attained by usurpation and abuse of Gods ordinances or benefits But this I understand not how it is according to Mr. Bs. Doctrine 1. He conceives visible Churchmembership distinct from Circumcision What Ordinance is there then which may be abused by receiving visible Church-membership 2. The visible Churchmembership of infants among the Jews doth not to me appear to be a thing tendered or offered by God upon condition of parents faith and to be accepted or refused but to be a state resuâ—ting from Gods fact forementioned without such offer 6. What is in the Scriptures after expressed shall be viewed in it's place Mr. B. adds I am next to prove the consequence that this right was coferred by some grant promise or Covenant of God And this is as easie as to prove that the world was made by Gods power and efficiency or will or to prove that God is the owner of all things and no man can receive them but by his gift 1. If there be no other way possible for right to be conveyed from God to us but onely by his grant promise or Covenamt which we call donation and is a moral civil action then it is by this means that it is conveyed But there is no other possible way of such conveyance Ergo. We have no right till God give us right His will signified createth our right No man can have right to that which is wholly and absolutely anothers but by his consent or will This will is no way known but by some signs of it These signs of such a will for conveyance of right to a benefit are a civil moral action called a donation or gift simply If the sign be in writing we commonly call it a Deed of gift If it be by word of mouth conferring a present right we call it a verbal grant or gift If it confer onely a future right we call it a promise and sometimes a Covenant and sometimes the word Covenant signifieth both that act which gives a present right and
is either of good or evil If good it is either by contract or donation whether by a Testament praemiant Law or the like if evil it is either by some penal Law or voluntary agreement Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeâ—h 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious Soveraign to such Subjects and from such a Head to his Members As also a right to to my station in the Body and to the inseparable benefits thereof 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ acknowledged and promised actually or virtually really or reputatively Now for the first how can God be related to me as my God or Christ as my Saviour and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings by any other way then his own free gift This gift must be some signification of his will For his secret will is not a gift but a purpose of giving This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action which is a signifying of the Donors will and can be by no way but either pure donation contract testament or law In our case it must needs partake of the nature all these It is not from one in any equality nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us Being therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Benefactor it must needs be by pure donation or it cannot be ours Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise or by his word and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance and engagement to certain fidelity gratitude and duty and so is the stipulator and we the promisers in the latter part of the action it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant though indeed the word Covenant frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone As it proceedeth from the death of the testator in natural moral-reputative being so it is called a testament And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor giving this benefit to the governed to promote the ends of government and obliging to duty thereby so it partaketh of the nature of a law The commonest Scripture name for this act is Gods Covenant or Promise and sometimes his Gift which all signifie the same thing here It follows therefore that either by Gods taking Israel to be his people you mean some civil political action as a Covenant promise or the like collation of the benefit and then you assert the thing which you deny or else you know not what you mean nor can make another know it without the discovery of the grossest absurdity And as for the other thing which is contained in Churchmembership the professed duty of man to God it is most certain 1. That Gods law obligeth us to that duty 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation and so to re-engage themselves 3. That this actual consent professed doth therefore double the obligation And thus by a mutual contract Covenant or consent whereof our part is first required by a law is the relation of Churchmembership contracted Now to lay by and deny all this and give us the general naked name of taking for Gods people is meerly delusory seeing that taking means this which you exclude or it means nothing that 's true and reasonable And therefore tell us better what it means Answ. All before being but a velitation or light skirmish I looked here for some great battel But I find it nothing but a rallying together the forces scattered before there being not one thing I know of in this passage but what was set down before and is answered I have distinctly shewed how moral and physical acts concur to the visible Churchmembership of the people of which infants are a part and natural to that visible Churchmembership which the Jews infants had and what they were both in my Letter and in this answer What M. B. replies is vain 1. It is not true that the effect in question is a moral it is at least in infants meerly a physical effect their Churchmembership is not by any act which reacheth not to the effect 2. The taking is of individual pâ—rsons existent 3. By many particular acts yet in a good sence before given summed up into one transeunt fact 4. The physical acts are none of those M. B. frivolously imagines but such as are mentioned in the Scripture and declared in my Letter 5. It is not true that a meer physical taking cannot produce a moral effect For supposing the Spirit should inspire faith immediately without any preaching the effâ—ct would be moral though produced by a meer physical taking or act 6. The transeunt fact I set down doth not exclude but did expresly include in my Letter both Covenants single and mutual and laws and precepts yet as I have said before it doth exclude that promise of Mr. Bs. of Gods being a God to believers and their seed and a precept of believing or accepting this for their children which confer the benefit of visible Churchmembership Yea it is fully proved before that if there were such a promise and precept yet these would not actually make infants visible Church-members 7. It is not true that the relation of visible Churchmembership essentially containeth a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerful and gracious Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members For to omit the unfiâ—ness of the expression of right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men which contains these two fond conceits 1. That great benefits are included in Gods soveraignty over men whereas the soveraignty of God includes not any benefit but his own greatness he is soveraign over the reprobate men and Angels as well as the elect and yet they have no benefit yea his soveraignty is shewed in their reprobation as well as the election of the other 2. That visible Churchmembers have a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men whereas what benefit soever it be yet right is not to us by visible Church-membership it is most false that that relation either constitutivè or consecutivè doth essentially contain that right For neither doth the term formally import any right at all but a manner of being or state with relation as I have before distinctly declared nor doth that right inseparably accrue to such visible Churchmembers There are and may be visible Churchmembers
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
of God who chose the daughters of Adam for their beauty as being the seed of the Saints c. but as being at least in appearance holy and true worshippers and chosen by God they are so denominated noâ— from their discent from the godly for then they had been called the sons of the Saints rather then of God but from their profession and practâ—se if the interpretation of Aben Ezra that they were the sons Elohim of the Judges or mighty or that other that they were eminent persons hold not 3. I deny that it can be proved that these sons of â—od were not truly godly or that that they were so wicked that God repenâ—ed that he made them and destroyed them in the flood For neither doth their love of women prove they were not truly godly Solomon is judged truly godly Nehem. 13.26 though hee fell perhaps more deeply into the same sin Sampson was a believer Heb. 11.32 yet sinned this way Nor doth that which is said Gen. 6.11 12 13. prove it for that is rather to be understood of the Nephilim or Giants or the posterity of the the sons of God mentioned v. 4. rather then of the sons of God themseâ—ves v. 2. And therefore it is not proved that it was not their own godliness that made them called the sons of God but their Church state Nor is theâ—e any thing Deut. 14.1 that proves the sons of God Gen. 6.2 were such from their infancy as born of Churchmembers For they are the sons of Gods there either by profession or special choice v. â— not from their parentage Much less is there any thing 2 Cor. 6.18 to that purpose for the promise of son-ship there is not from birth but obedience v. 17. And as Gen. 6.2 their being made sons of God is not exprest to be by calling so neither is it said to be by humane generation nor doth it follow if the daughters of men were such from their birth the sons of God must be so from their birth no not though sons of God noted a generation or stock as it doth not follow that because that which is born of the flesh is flesh from the birth that that which is born of the spirit is spirit from the birth Joh. â— 6 Also saith Mr. B. an intimation of this priviledge and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous both before and after the flood which I will not stand on particularly Answ. This is granted but proves not their visible Churchmembership from their birth He adds And when all the world had so defiled themselves that God was resolved to cut them off he spared Noah and his family or sons Though Cham was to be cursed yet was hee of the Church which worshipped the true God and spared as a son of Noah and one of that society And if God so far spared him then for his fathers sake as to house him in the Ark the type of the Church hee sure took him to be of the same society in his infancy and then bare him the same favour on the same account Answ That the Ark was a type of the Church is not said in Scripture it is rather made a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 But let it bee granted the Ark was a type of the Church and that Cham was in the Ark for his fathers sake and a membâ—r of the Church yet it followes not he was so in infancy he might be so as a worshipper of the true God though himself in other things corrupt Again saith Mr. B. As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue as he did Adam with an increase and multiply and made a Covenant with him and his seed after him Which Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should bee drowned no more and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed and even with the beasts of the field yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed as one whom God would shew a more special respect to as he had done in his deliverance and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better For though the word Covenant be the same to man and beast yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word as applied to each And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an increase and multiply if all his infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church and so left as common or unclean This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children must now bee so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church it were a strange change in God and a strange blessing on Noah And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed if all that seed must bee so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain Answ. Though the Covenant Gen. 9.9 should import a special favour to Noah and his seed more then to the beasts which yet the text expresseth not yet that this should be infants visible Churchmembership followes not nor is it likely sith then all the infant posterity yea all the seed of Noah and consequently all the men of the world since then should be visible Churchmembers Nor was thâ— blessing of multiplying sad to Noah reduced to such a paucity though his infant posterity were not of the visible Church nor were they any more common and unclean thereby then they should have been if so taken nor had this been to increase and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil they that are not visible Churchmembers may be of the Kingdome of Christ and not of the Kingdome of the Devil I say not all Noahs issue was out of the Church yet the leaving out infants from the visible Church shewed no change in God from what hee was to them when he housed the sons of Noah in the Ark nor doth it any whit lessen the blessing expressed Gen. 9.1 nor doth it infer that all that seed must be thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain These are but frivolous inferences fit onely to scare weak heads Moreover saith he it is certain that Noah did prophetically or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Sem and Japhet And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him And it is plain that it is not onely the persons but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet that is to their posterity And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem as well as
the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the infant seed of them out of Gods Church And wel they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Sem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal. 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Sem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Answ. I grant that not onely the person of Shem but his posterity were blessed nor do I deny God was their God nor that their infant seed was in Gods Church But this doth not prove their visible Churchmembership in infancy but rather their invisible Churchmemship for that is imported by the phrase of being their God as Mr. Ainsworths exposition intimates God was God to Jacob in his mothers womb yet he was not then a visible but an invisible Church-member Moreover saith Mr. B. in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimatâ—â— First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Sem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that pâ—ople begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Sem now they were the tents of Sem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have tâ—e same sort of members or materials and therefore infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Sems tents had infant Churchmembers for the Jewes Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Sems tents Ergo. Answ. That the tents of Sem note the Jewish people is not improbable But then it is as certain that they are so called not from what they were in Sems days at least not what they were when Noah prophesied but what they were to be afterwards when they were formed to be a peculiar people and they are Sems tents because they descended from him And this is clear even from what Mr. B. and all grant that what is here said was accomplished in the posterity of Sem Japhet and Cham. And therefore it followes not that if the Jewish people had infants Churchmembers visible it must be so in Sems dayes because they are termed Sems tents sith they are so termed from their discent not from the state of the Church in Sems time Nevertheless if it bee granted that Sems tents are the Church of God in Sems family in his days it will rather prove it to note the invisible Church then the visible For the dwelling in the tents of Sem in Mr. Bs. and their sense whom he follows is by faith and so the tents of Sem must note the invisible Church of true believers of whom God is God as he was of Sem the Israel of God as they are termed Gal. 6.16 not the Jewish Church visible and they were joyned by perswasion and therefore not infants who were to dwell in Sems tents and consequently infants visible Churchmembership is not hence proved And to Mr. Bs. argument I answer by granting the conclusion if by Sems tents be meant the invisible Church if the Jewish people the minor is denied He goes on thus Yet further let it here bee noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applieth the word dwell to Japhet then to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleered at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Sem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joint heyrâ— and of the same body and joint partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition wall being broken down c. Eph. 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Sems posterity should bee cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Sems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Sems infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his infant seed bee cast or left out So that here is a promise of infant Churchmembership unto the Gentiles in these words Answ. For my part for ought I yet discern Mr. Nicholas Fuller his exposition in his â—d Book of his Miscellanies Theological ch 4. seems more right then that which Mr. B. and many other Expositors follow to wit thus God shall enlaâ—ge the coasts of the posterity of Japhet in Asia Europe and America and God shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is Christ or God manifested in the flesh shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is among the Jews being of their stock as it is John 1.14 and Canaan shall be servant to the Israelites and the posterity of Japhet as the Canaanites Egyptians Carthaginians and other people of Cham have been being conquered by Joshua Alexander the great the Romans and other people Nor do I see how Mr. Bs. interpretation can be right sith when Japhet was perswaded to dwell in Sems tents Chams posterity also were perswaded and Canaan was no more a servant in a spiritual sense no nor so much as Sems tents the Jewish people nor were the Gentiles perswaded to dwell in Sems tents that is in the Jewish Church visible but it was quite dissolved and they a separate Church from them And therefore it is most manifestly false that the children of Japhet must dwell in Sems tents that is the same visible Church Jewish and therefore the inference is wrong there are infant visible members in the Gentile Church Christian yea sith according to Mr. Bs. own exposition the Gentiles were by the perswasion of the Gospel as it is Ephes. 3.6 of the same body none of the Gentiles were of the same body but those who were perswaded by the Gospel which cannot be said of infants and therefore the contrary follow from Mr. Bs. own exposition that infants were not to be visible Christian Churchmembers SECT LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22. WE come next saith Mr. B. to the promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of infants to be members of the
those persons at age and loving God as their ancestors without which the promise is not made good and therefore Mr. B. had occasion enough to doubt whether this mercy implies visible Churchmembership of all infants of visible professors or true believers yea he had cause to assure himself that it doth not sith then it were not true in thousands of Noahs Abrahams and other holy mens posterity Wherefore all things considered I incline to conceive this a promise of temporal blessings chiefly to the Israelites to whom God intailed mercies more then to other people and if it be extended to higher mercies and to other people yet with reservation to himself of his free election not without conditions and limitations as the event and other Scriptures make necessary to be included which will make it unserviceable for Mr. Bs. purpose He adds In Psal. 102.28 It is a general promise the children of thy servants shall continue and their seed shall be established before thee It s usual in the Old Testament to express Gods favour by temporal blessings more then in the Gospel but yet still they secure us of his favour As I will not sail thee nor forsake thee might secure Joshua more then us of temporal successes and yet not more of Gods never failing favour Answ. The words are not a promise of God for they are directed to God as the expressions thy servants before thee besides what is said before v. 24 25 26 27. shew and therefore are not of the same rank with Gods words to Joshua Josh. 1.5 yet they express such assurance as came either from a promise or a propheâ—ical instinct But whether the promise were general or particular to some whether of temporal or eternal blessings is uncertain The occasion seems to intimate this sense From thy continuance though we be now very low yet we assure our selves that thou wilt not utterly cut off our children but that thou wilt raise them up notwithstanding our present desolations and captivity or thou wilt re-ingraff them if meant of the conversion of the Jews to Christ as hath been conceived and they shall continue either here as thy people a long time or be thine for ever upon their calling again Either way though they may intimate Gods favour yet not general to all his servants children but to the Jews nor to them do they intimate infant visible Churchmembership or to any other but such a stability of their posterity in Gods favour and their obedience as is quite different from meer infant visible Churchmembership and may be without it Yet again saith Mr. B. There is a stable promise to all Gods people in general that have children Psal. 103.17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousness unto childrens children And to be secured by promise of Gods mercy and righteousness is the state of none without the Church Answ. The promise must be understood of so many aâ—d such mercy and righteousness as that it may be true But it is not true of all the children of them that fears God that they are visible Churchmembers surely not of abortives and still-born children nor that they are partakers of saving mercy and righteousness for Ishmael Esau c. were not so And therefore it must be understood of such temporal mercies and so indefinitely as may agree to some out of the Church to whom God often shews mercy and righteousness of performing promises of preservation increase c. which he shews not to others for their parents sake And saith Mr. B. if they were all to be kept out of the Church I scarce think that children would be called an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb his reward Psal. 127.3 nor the man happy that hath his quiver full of them Nor would the sucking children be called as part of the solemn assembly to the humiliation Joel 2.16 2 Chron. 20.13 Answ. Children may be an heritage of the Lord and his reward though they be not visible Churchmembers as the land of Canaan was an heritage Psal. 135.12 and he may be happy that hath many of them with that happiness which is mentioned in the forepart of the 15th v. of Psal. 144. though they be no Churchmembers And yet the infants of the Israelites I acknowledge were members of that Church or people and that the Psalmist speaks of them And so do the Texts Joel 2.16 2 Chron. 20.13 though the assembling of them do no more prove them visible Churchmembers then the cloathing of beasts with sackcloth Jonah 3.7 8. doth prove the beasts Churchmembers it being usual in such national fears and humiliations to have all whatsoever to be among the mourners whether Churchmembers or not as the men of Tyre were forced by Nehemiah ch 13.19 to rest on the Sabbath Mr. B. adds There is a standing promise to all the just Prov. 20.7 The just man walketh in his integrity his children are blessed after him There is no sort of men without the Church that is pronounced blessed in Scripture A blessed people are Gods people and those are the Church separated from the cursed world One lower blessing will not denominate a man or society a blessed man or society Answ. It is a standing promise or observation But that all his children are blessed or that they are visible Churchmembers much less that there is a promise or law that all visible Churchmembers infants should be visible Churchmembers cannot be thence inferred That without the Church a person is pronounced blessed is apparent from Ishmaels blessing Gen. 17.20 21. when he was excluded the Covenant and cast out Yet more saith Mr. B. If it were a good argument then Deut. 4.37 because he loved thy fathers therefore he chose their seed after them then it is good still as to favour in general So Deut. 10.15 Psal. 69.36 Prov. 11.21 The seed of the righteous shall be delivered Answ. It is no good argument Because God loving the fathers of the Israelites chose their seed after them therefore he chooseth the seed of every righteous man to be his people or that he sheweth favour to them The contrary is manifest in Lot Job and others whose posterity God shewed not favour as he did to the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob whereof the former is termed Gods friend James 2.23 and it is certain from Rom. 9.4 5. 11.28 that God did and will shew them that favour that he never did nor will shew to the posterity of any the most godly persons of other nations What is said Psal. 69.36 is said onely of the obedient Israelites and if it be extended to others it can be meant onely of those thaâ— love the Name of God and therefore makes nothing for the visible Churchmembership of infants of believers either by profession or real Whether it be read delivereth himself as Junius or shall be delivered it is neither universally true as
because he would not as intending a new frame where infants could have no place but because they would not and so cast out themselves and their infants Certainly it is the joy of the formerly desolate Gentiles that they shall have many more children then she that had an husband and not fewer Gal. 4.25 26 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise even that promise which extended to the infants with the parents Gal. 4.28 Answ. I have examined all that Mr. B. saith in his answer to the 8th question and do profess that I finde no promise no not in Gen. 3.15 of infants visible Churchmembership or any precept but that of circumcision Gen. 17. which Mr. B. confesseth to be repealed in respect of the outward act and for the dedicating of a childe to God by prayer to God to sanctifie it or vow to bring it up for God if God give life c. or adjuration that they should cleave to God left in writing or any other way upon record I still allow it and so need prove no repeal So that in truth I see no reason Mr. B. should expect that I should perform his task of proving a repeal of that which is not but that he should make good the task I impose on him to prove such a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise or precept unrepealed which I expect to be done at latter Lammas And to his confident speeches I reply Sure I am from Luk. 2.34 Joh. 9.39 that Jesus Christ came that many of the Jewish Church might be left or cast out of his Church from Matth. 28.19 and other places before alledged that he intended to leave all infants out of his visible Church since his comming in the flesh though he were an infant head of the Church that though he died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11.52 yet hee intended not to gather them into a visible Church national comprehending infants that he preached not to any infants nor by his Disciples baptised any of them that it is false which Mr. B. saith that he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea even the national Church that then was unto himself as the true head as his visible Church from Matth. 28.19 Markâ—6 â—6 15 16. and the course he John Baâ—tist and the Apostles followed that he did intend a new frame of his Church visible where infants could have no place that Hierusalem which is above the Covenant of the Gospel had more children in the Gentile Churches then the Covenant of the Law in the Jewish Church though infants were not visible members in the Christian Church as they were in the Jewish that the promise meant Gal 4.28 is not a proâ—ise to a believer and his natural seed of visible Church-membership much less to every visible professour and his seed but a promise of righteousness and blessing and the spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe as is plain from Gal. 3.7 8 9 11 14 16 18 21 22 29. But Mr. B. hath yet more work for me Before I end saith he I shall be boâ—d to put two or three questions to you out of your last Letter Qu 1. didâ—o â—o nomine cease to be Churchmembers though they forsook not God â—nd so of the infants if they were sold in infancy If you affirm it then prove it If you deny it then infants might bee Churchmembers that weâ—e not of the Commonwealth Answ. Such servants and infants were members of the Jewish Commonwealth as they were of the Church in right undoubtedly in fact if they owned the Jews God and Moses Laws and submitted to the Senate of Elders so far as they knew and could be permitted if they did not though they forsook not God yet they were neither of the Jewish Church nor Commonwealth as Cornelius Acts 10th was not of the Jewish Church or policy None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Commonwealth even then when they were violently held under a forraign power as when they were under the Chaldean Persian Greek and Roman Empires they did submit to both though with much reluctancy Qu. 2. If as you say it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off or not who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem which came to be a Patriarchal seat Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jewes Churchmembers in infancy If no then it was somewhat else then unbelief that broke them off Answ. The believing Jews were not broken off from the people of God but from the Jewish people or Church national which rejected Christ these believing Jews continued a famous Church after some time of publishing the Gospel and the Jews presecuting the faith sepated from the Jewish Church not having infants Churchmembers and they were broken off from the Jewish Church national not by unbelief but by faith in Christ to which they did adhere and could not bee conjoyned to the Jewish Church without rejection of Christ. Mr. B. addes If yea then Qu. 3. Whether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews but to bring in Gentiles breaking down the partition wall and making of two one Church would have such a Linsey Woolsy Church of party colours or several forms so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have infant members and the Church at Rome should have none Jews infants should be members and not Gentiles Answ. Christ came to cast out the unbelieving Jews not from the Jewish Church national they continued still in it but from the invisible Church of true believers which was in that nation to which was joyned the Gentile Church of true believers which were all of one sort whether at Rome or Hierusalem to wit all that had one spirit one faith one baptism not one infant in the visible Church Christian either at Rome or Hierusalem Qu. 4. If unbelief brake them will not repentance graff them in And so should every repenting believing Jews infants be Churchmembers Answ. Faith and repentance will ingraff every penitent believer into the Church invisible the profession thereof will ingraff them into the visible Church but not their infants though the believer bee a Jew Qu 5. Was not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual and gathered in a spiritual way Answ. The invisible was the visible Jewish national was not Qu. 6. How prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame that infants were members or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age Answ. I say not that it was a blemish but that it was a more imperfect state of the Church then in that and other reâ—ards The later question is answered Sect. 50 51 52. before Qu. 7. In
mercy from Christ now as then he should say more Answ. This answer was right infants now are in a better case though not visible Christian churchmembers then they were when in the Jewish Church in which they were circumcised and obliged to Moses law and they have as much assurance of mercy from Christ to wit righteousness and life as then yea more though I need not say so in contradiction to Mr. Bs. minor then before sith Christs exhibition in the flesh is a greater assurance of saving mercy then was before To which saith Mr. B. I replied thus If those infants which were in the Church before Christ had God engaged in an oath and Covenant to be their God and to take them for his peculiar people and those infants out of the Church since Christ have no such thing then they before Christ in the Church had more assurance of mercy then those out of the Church since Christ But the former is true as I proved out of Deut. 29.10 11 12. upon which text what vain altercations there were and what words were used against the express Letter of the text you shall see in the relation of the Dispute if â— be called to publish it Answ. For my part I shall not consent that Mr. B. publish the relation of the Dispute having found his dealing so injurious to me in that which he hath already done and his partiality towards his opinion and party I have looked over two such relations of the Dispute as I could get and I finde in them that I did deny the minor and when Mr. B. alledged Deut. 29.10 11 12. to prove it I did distinguish of being God in respect of saving benefits and thus God is engaged in Covenant to be God to infants now no visible Churchmembers as he was then to wit to the elect onely or in respect of outward advantages such as were peculiar to the nation of the Jews as that they should possess Canaan have Gods worship and presence with them in a more special manner then other people Christ to come out of that people c. as Rom. 9.4 5. the Apostle reckons them and in this respect it was granted that infants in the Church before Christ had God so engaged and that neither infants out of the Church Christian no nor believers in it no nor all believers afore Christ such as Cornelius had God so engaged and that in this respect the oath of God was meant appeared from v. 13. which saith thus that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob which appears to be meant of their setling in Canaan and their prosperous state there as many places evince where it is mentioned particularly Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 c. besides many other passages in the same speech of Moses Deut. 29.16 21 23 24 27. Deut. 30.2 5.9 10 16 18. and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30.20 From which passages it is as evident as the light that the meaning Deut. 29.10 11 12. was this that God did bring into Covenant by Moses the chief standing for the rest the whole nation of Israel that they might for themselves and their posterity unborn binde them to observe the lawes of Moses given in Horeb and thereby be established a people to God and he might be a God to them in setling keeping and prospering them in Canaan if they did obey Now Mr. B. asserted that God did covenant with all the little ones and others there present to be their God and that in respect of spiritual benefits and to that end urged Deut. 30.6 which he made conditional and to other then the elect Against which I urged that to circumcise the heart is the same with writing Gods lawes in the heart Heb. 8.10 which Dr. Twiss rightly concludes to be absolute and to the â—lect onely and that to assert it to be conditional is Pelagianism and I desired the Auditors to take notice of Mr. Bs. assertion in that thing I confess I had not time to collect and to produce the texts here mentioned which was one reason why I was still averse from extemporary verbal disputes but this was the substance of that â—â—â—rcation which Mr. B. cals vain and saith words were used against the express letter of the text Concerning which although I will not undertake to justifie all I then said yet the answer I then gave I stil avouch as right and conceive Mr. Bs. assertion of circumcising the heart to love the Lord to belong to other then the elect and to be conditional to be very erroneous and refer the reader to Mr. Bs. own words in answer to Mr. Bedford in the Friendly accommodation pag. 361 362. to discern the errour of it Mr. B. saith I further add out of Ephes. 2.12 Those that were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel were strangers to the Covenant of promises and without hope and without God and there is no Scripture speaketh of delivering any from this sad state but Churchmembers therefore sure it can be no mercy to be put out of the Church Answ. Though the conclusion were granted it hurts not me who do not asserr the putting infants out of the Church who were in but the not taking of them into the visible Church Christian. However the text speaks of the Ephesians who were uncircumcised in the flesh v. 11. but doth not say that all that were uncircumcised or aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel were without God in the world For it is certain that Cornelius and many other Proselytes uncircumcised were not without God in the world and therefore persons might then have Christ though not be visible Churchmembers and if Mr. B. say that none but visible members in the Christian Church have Christ God hope he must damn all abortives and still born children of believers and all those that are converted and shew it not as dumb persons on their death-bed or any other way in articulo mortis Again saith he God added to the Church such as should bee saved therefore to be cast or put out of the Church is no known way of mercy Answ. The conclusion is granted and yet the text proves not that all who are added to the Church shall be saved or that all that shall be saved are or shall be added to the Church visible Again saith hee the Church is the family of Christ even the visible Church is called the house of God 1 Tim. 3.15 But it is no known way of mercy to be out of Gods house and family Answ. I grant it and yet a person may be in Christs house and a temple to him and not a visible Churchmember Again saith he the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth therefore no mercy
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
Rom. 11.11 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles the fall of them is the riches of the world the diminishing decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people of which the infants were a part and onely Churchmembers there and while that nation were Gods Church partly through Gods contrivance which was that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off and at last both have mercy in their season Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein If this doctrine be true why may we not expect to be taught that infants must also be cast out of heaven in mercy to the whole catholick Church Answ. Becaâ—se we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholick Church is by breaking off â—he Jewish Church If iâ— be saith he no carnal Churchstate to have infants in heaven why is it a carnal Churchstate which containeth infants in it on earth Answ. That any are infants in heaven it s not likely 2. If there should be yet being fully sanctified they should not be carnal but spiritual and the Church there onely consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Churchmembers by carnal generation the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was and not spiritual by faith as the Scripture makes it Joh. 1.12 13. 3.5 6. Gal. 3.26 27. Again saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have infants kept out of heaven nor no hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth or any hurt to the Church to see them here members Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it their non-visible Christian Churchmembership is a benefit to the Catholike Church in the manner before said because God hath so ordered it But yet saith Mr. B. let us come a little nearer what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters of which sort the Church hath none yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love and that are merciful as their heavenly faâ—her is merciful and who are bound to receive little children in Christs name and who are become as children themselves to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched But such are all true members of the Church and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church of which we are speaking hath no enemies or man-haters It is not true that wee are bound to receive little children in Christs name nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched or that they are all unchurched nor do I think it true thâ—t all true members of the Church visible are such as Mr. B. describes But this I say the non-visible Church-membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe however it seem to the Church But yet nearer saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their children put out of the Church Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children and doth grace increase it and the Scripture encourage it and yet must they take it for a mercy that their children are put out when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection it is a mercy and ought to seem a mercy that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Churchmembership and by consequent their infant visible Churchmembership and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lords supper as the Jews children were to the Passeover Yet further saith he why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did His bloud be on us and our children For their curse is to be broken off from the Church and if that be a mercy the Jews are then happier then I take them to be And how can we then pray that they may be graffed in again Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament much less Evangelical promises made to believing parents for their seed nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit Phil. 2.1 Yea whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children their prosperâ—â—y rest and peace in their dwellings c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate if without sin is rather preferred as more happy 1 Cor 7.14 and the poor and persecuted rather adjâ—dged blessed then the rich and those that live in pâ—ace Matth 5.4 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national but in being not in the Olive that is the Church of true believers but in the national Church Jewish and that they were not broken off from it was their unhappiness and we are to pray not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons 6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out yet it doth not follow that God would do it He is the God of infants as well as of the aged and is mercifull to them as well as others all souls are his He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants And his mercy is over all his works Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh yet he hath not mercy on all flesh all souls are his yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish his mercy is over all his works yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people he is naturally mercifull yet sheweth mercy freely as he will I say not he casteth out all infants of the Church
and therefore it is enough for me to deny it as being false concerning abortives still-born infant children elect and others 10. Saith he If Christ have promised his presence to his Church to the end of the world and to walk among his golden canâ—lesticks and take pleasure in her but not so to those without the Church then it is better being withâ—n though but as the Jews then without But the former is true therefore the latter Did I not resolve on breviâ—y it were easier to cite multitudes of texts for all these Answ. Mr. B. should prove his minor that Christ hath promised these things to infants in the visible Church Jewish and not to infants of believers who are not visible churchmembers Christian for which though he talk of multitudes of texts yet I shall not believe he hath any till he produce them He adds But upon this much I say to the contrary minded as Joshua in another case choose you of what society you will be of but as for me and my houshold we will be of the Church of God Answ. And so say I if I can prevail with them or for them Mr. B. adds And had I children I should be loth God should shut thâ—m out Answ. So sâ—y I. Again Mr. B. For without are dogs extortioners liars c. Even Christ calls the woman of Canaan that was without a dog though when he had admitted her into his Church she became a daughter Answ. The words Revel 22.15 without are dogs the verse foregoing shews to be meant of being without the city where the blessed enter and it being compared with Rev. 21.8 thence appears that they that are without are cast into the lake burning with fire and brimstone which is the second death which if he say as his words intimate of all that are not visible churchmembers he pronounceth a bloudy sentence against millions that are in heaven and must be a hundred times more uncomfortable to parents concerning their abortive still-born children then any thing I ever held And his abuse of Christs words Matth. 15.26 Mark 7 27. is yet more gross in alledging them after that Rev 22.15 as if dogs Matth. 15.26 were of the same sense with dogs in the other whereas Rev. 12.15 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth note such as rend them that give holy things to them Matth. 7.6 but Matth. 15.26 Mark 7.27 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little dogs and doth not note persons so called from their profane â—ischievous impious behaviour but in opposition to children that is Jews such as were of Gâ—â—tile discent and therefore accounted unclean And the application of them is as bad as if the not maâ—ing infants Christian visible churchmembers made them dogs in either sense Whereas to make theâ— dogs as Rev. 22.15 is meant is not onely to make them non-visible churchmembers but also of most wicked manners and damned wretches and the term dogs as used Matth. 15 26. might be applied as well to visible church-members not Jewish such as Cornelius Acts 10.2 as to those out of it Nor doth it appear that our Lord Christ either admitted the woman of Canaan into his Church or termed her daughter as Mr. Bs. words intimate but woman after her manifestation of faith So that Mr. B. as his wont is doth prophanely abuse the Scripture to make his adversaries teneâ— appear odious without cause What he adds I say therefore as Peter whither shall we go if we forsake the Church It is good for us to be here those that will needs think it better to be out of the Church then in it let them go they need no Anathema nor excommunication seeing they think it such a mercy to bee without the Church I will not say of it as Paul of his ship except ye abide in it ye cannot â—ee saved and so I conclude Christ did not come to believers hurt by unchurching their children doth but shew his malignant disposition to spit as much venome as hee can against his antagonists and their doctrine calumniating it as tending to forsaking the Church thinking it better to be out of the Church then in it thinking it a mercy to bee without the Church Christ did come to believers hurt by unchurching their children none of which followes from my tenet but the charging of them on it shewing Mr. Bs. spightfulness towards mee and the truth which the Lord forgive him In the same vein of scribling Mr. B. proceeds thus ch 15. My 10th arg is this from Heb. 8.6 Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises Heb. 7.22 And the Author of a better testament Rom. 5.14 15 20. Where sin abounded grace much more abounded Ephes. 3.19 20. That ye may comprehend the height and breadth and length and depth and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledg with a hundred the like places from whence I argue thus If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comfort therein then it was before Christs comming then our children ought to bee Churchmembers and consequently that ordinance and merciful gift is not repealed But all the said texts and many more shew that the Church of Christ is not in a worse condition now then it was then but unconceivably better therefore our children ought to bee Churchmembers as well as theirs was then I have before proved that it is worse to bee out of ehe Church then in it and then nothing else can bee said against this argument that I know of Answ. That Mr. B. hath not proved any thing he should have proved in contradiction to my tenet is before shewed To the argument here made I answer 1. by denying the syllogâ—sm to be right in form for want of putting in the minor those words in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comâ—ort therein and adding in the minor those words but unconceivably better which were not in the major whereby the syllogisâ— is monstrous consisting of â—our or five terms 2. Letting that pass I deny the consequence of the major and aver that though our infants be not visible Churchmembers now yet the Church of Christ is not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comforts therein then it was before Christs comâ—ing but unconceivably better in regard of the comming of Christ in the flesh the gift of the spirit the preaching of the gospel c. 3. That none of the texts speak any thing for Mr. Bs. purpose but rather against it In the first it is said the Covenant of which Christ is mediator is better then that of which Moses or Aaron were mediators and that it is established on better promises the former containing for the most part promises of earâ—hly blessings in Canaan and that promise which was of righteousness was upon the condition of keeping the Law without promise of the
part standing For the partition waâ—l â—s clearly meant of the body of Ceremonies and necessitie of repairing to the Temple and taking the yoke of Moses Law on them which kept the Gentiles from joyning with the Jewes in the worship of the same God which I keep not up in any sort much less pluck up the wall of the Church or vineyard it self and as for our children to lay all waste to the wilderness but Mr. B. by maintaining a national Church or visible Church-membership by natural discent doth keep up the partition wall in true construction sith the way of pulling down the partiâ—ion wall by God haâ—h been by making all one body through faith the succession of which in the place of Circumcision and the Jewish Churchmembership is the doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. and elsewhere as is shewed before Mr. B. continues the same prattle Ch. 15. thus My 11. arg is this If the children of believers be now put out of the Church then they are in a worse condicion then the very children of the Gentiles were before the comming of Christ But that were most absurd and false therefore so is the antecedent The consequent would plainly follow if the antecedent were true as is evident thus Before Christs comming any Gentile in the world without exception if hee would might have his children to be members of the visible Church But now according to Mr. T. no Gentile may have his child a member of the Church therefore according to this doctrine the very Gentiles as well as the Jews are in a worse condition now and Christ should come to be a destroyer and do hurt to all the world which is most vile doctrine That the Gentiles might have their children Church-members before if they would come in themselves is not denied nor indeed can bee For it is the express letter of Gods law that any stranger that would come in might bring his children and all bee circumcised and admitted members of the Jews Church This was the case of any that would be full proselytes God in providence did deny to give the knowledge of his laws to the Gentiles as he did to the Jews but he excepted no man out of the mercy of his Covenant that would come in and take it except some few that were destinated to wrath for the height of their wickedness whom he commanded them presently utterly to destroy If any say that the Gentiles were admitted with their infants into no Church but the particular Church of the Jews I shall answer him 1. That it is false for they were admitted into the visible universal Church as I shall shew more fully afterward 2. If it were so yet the Church of the Jewes was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better state then those without So that he that will be of the faith of our opposers you see must believe that Christ hath come to deny the very Gentiles that priviledge which for their children they had before Yea that you may see it was not tied to the Jews onely or the seed of Abraham even when Abrahams own family was circumcised and as Mr. T. thinks then first admitted all into the Church there was but one of the seed of Abraham circumcised at that time for he had no one but Ishmael but of servants that were not of his seed there were admitted or circumcised 318. trained men-servants that fought for him Gen. 14.14 and how many hundred women and children and all he had you may conjecture And all these were then of the Church and but one of Abrahams seed and that one Ishmael Therefore certainly though the greatest priviledges were reserved for Isaac and his seed of whom Christ was to come yet not the priviledge of sole churchmembership for the very children of Abrahams servants were churchmembers And so I think this is plain enough Answ. It is most vile doctrine to say Christ came to be a destroyer and to do hurt to all the world and it is most vile doctrine which Mr. B. insinuates as if the denying of infants visible churchmembership did infer their destruction which is most palpably false sith neither were all churchmembers visible saved as v. g. Ishmael Esau nor all non-visible churchmembers damned as v. g. abortives still-borns And therefore Mr. B. by these insinuations discovers nothing but his own vitulency and I can justly deny the consequence of his argument till he shew me what benefit the infants of believers now do lose by not being Christian visible churchmembers which tends to their destruction and what is the benefit of infant visible Christian churchmembership which is for their salvation which they have not though they be not visible churchmembers I mean real and not meer putative benefit For my part 1. I think still that infants were not admitted into any visible Church but the Jews and their being of the universal was onely in that they were of the Jewish 2. I think it is a benefit not to be of the Church Jewish in which men were entred by circumcision and bound to keep the law and that Cornelius and such other as were not full proselytes were in as good a case as the full proselytes and that it is but vain talk of Mr. B. that the Church of the Jews was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better estate then those without onely as proselytes of the gate 3. That though there were in the Jewish Church other then Abrahams seed yet they were all of the Hebrew Common-wealth 4. That many of those churchmembers had no part in any of the promises made to Abraham And I think this argument of Mr. B. takes onely with them who superficially look into the thing as Mr. B. hath done SECT LXVII Mr. 12th arg ch 17. part 1. of Baptism from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is answered and my answers vindicated CH. 17. he proceeds thus My 12th Arg. is from the forementioned Text Deut. 29.10 11 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones were entred into Covenant with God From whence I argue thus If the Covenant which those infants who were then church-members were entred into with God was a Covenant of grace or a Gospel Covenant then it is not repealed and consequently their churchmembership is not repealed as being built on the Covenant or inseparably conjunct But the said Covenant which the infants who were then churchmembers did pass into was a Covenant of grace as distinct from the law which was repealed therefore neither it nor their churchmembership is repealed Here I shall prove 1. That all the infants did pass into this Covenant 2. That they were churchmembers that did so 3. That it was such a Covenant of grace 4. And then it will follow that it is not repealed Answ. The argument from this Text was urged very hotly by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. but in another manner as I gather from two copies of
as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born and of the most open profane children of believers as well aâ— the youngest children born into the world 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally I mean the special distinguishing love of God nor to any of them but according to his election of grace 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers was from his peculiar dâ—sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed bâ—fore in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation 6. If Adams infants he standing in integrity had been visible churchmembers yet they had been such onely in the Church by nature which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church and some not From hence I answer to the argument 1. by denying the antecedent that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin 2. The consequence of the major if it did not it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time much less from Adams creaâ—ion sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire â—f and Gods love might be to believers seed and yet they no visible church-members The last argument whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely he hath in his Letter to me before recited I think to the utmost he could urged it and the answer thereto is fully made here sect 54 55 56 57 58 59. and thereby it may appear not onely to a man of common sense but of acute sense that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abrahamâ— family and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs and that from the Scripture and yet Gods love as great to Noah Sem and their seed as to others Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wiâ—â— our first parents presently upon the fall but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people And though the promise Gen. 3.15 comprehend infants yet not all infants and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15 and that they are thereby Churchmembers hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling that he cites Revel 12.17 to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman against our infants no doubt when the woman Revel 12.17 is not Eve as Gen. 3.15 but the woman cloathed with the Sunne commonly conceived to represent the Chrâ—stian Church and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST which cannot bee said of infants But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity and proceed to the next Ch. 24. arg 19th If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition which is made evident thus God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men both from the Church and from life for the sins of their progenitors therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men so much as into the visible Church then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church which is not yet proved All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices were swallowed up with them for their rebellion and so cut off both from the Church and life Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin and so cut off both from the Church and life Jos. 7.25 â—â— Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shouâ—d serve other Gods by the sedâ—cement of whomsoever that is if they should break the Covenant for the Covenant is that they take God onely for â—heir God then that City should wholly be destroyed and not so much as the infants spared Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command Num. 31.17 they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions Dan. 6.24 Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance the Hittites Amorites Canaanites Perezites the Hivites and Jebusites Deut. 20.16 17. How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d Com. And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church or Kingdom then hee should not onely shew more severity to the seed of the wicked then mercy to the seed of the faithful but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed and the many promises to them and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech such as should be used in Disputes For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God and goodness yet the term of proneness to
the most part corporal and on the Israelites and therefore the thing belongs not to the present point nor is it true that always the judgment on the children is part of the curse on the parents neither in corporal nor spiritual evils And though the truly faithful are not cursed with the great curse of condemnation yet those that are onely so visibly may bee so yea and the faithfull themselves are not altogether free from some curses both on themselves and their children as on the other side wicked men may have some blessings on them and their children Mr. B. himself said in the next ch 24. before They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 yet were they Idolaters Christ hath taken off the curse opposite to the blessing of righteousness Gal. 3.9 10 13. not every curse from the faithfull Out of all which I infer that were it granted that the non-visible churchmembership of infants were a judgement for the parents sin and that Christ hath taken off the curse from the faithfull yet it would not follow that believing parents infants must be Christian visible churchmembers sith some curses still stay on the children for the parents sin Yea Mr. B. before in his Letter tels me that it was determined in one of their private Disputes by himself no doubt the Dr. of the Chair in the Colledge of Worcestershire Ministers at Kidderminster that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt I hast after Mr. B. SECT LXXII Mr. 21th Arg. ch 26. from the absurdity of my Doctrine making all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil is answered CH. 26. saith he The 21th arg That doctrine which maketh all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visible Church doth make them all members of the visible Kingdome of the â—evil Therefore it is false doctrine Mr. T. taketh the like reasoning hainously from Mr. M. as if were injurious so to charge him And he saith 1. Consequences remote must not be fastened on men when they deny them 2. Many unbaptized are not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil and asketh whether children be in or out of that Kingdome before Baptism If out then by not baptizing he leaves them not in it c To this I answer 1. He that saith infants are all shut out of heaven may well be charged for teaching that they go to 〈◊〉 because the consequence is not remote but direct among thâ—se that acknowledge not a third place 2. I will onely lay a true charge on the doctrine and not the persons The doctrine sure may be charged with the consequences though the person may not 3. It is not your denial of Baptism directly that leaveth infants in the visible Kingdome of the Devil but your denial of their churchmembership Therefore to those vain passages I answer That it 's true that many unbaptized are in the Kingdome of Christ and so many infants also and so not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil But that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome I shall now prove and so that your doctrine is guilty of making I mean not really but doctrinally making all infants to be members of Satans visible Kingdome in that you deny any infants to be members of the visible Church Answ. 1. That which I said about remote consequences not to be charged on men as their sentence was spoken not from his charge of leaving all the infants to have their actual standing in the visible Kingdome of the Devil but of putting them all out of the Covenant of grace and this was made the bloudy sentence of the Anabaptists though no such thing can be proved of them by any of their sayings And therefore the two answers here of Mr. B. are impertinent my speeches being about another point though perhaps somewhat like it and charged on us with it And to Mr. Bs. answers I reply 1. Mr. B. seems to me to oppose ineptly a direct consequence to a remote whereas a near consequence is opposed to a remote not a direct for a remote consequence may be direct as well as a near But it is frequent with Mr. B. to abuse words 2. If a person acknowledge a third place they that shut infants out of heaven may not be charged with it as their sentence that they go to hell which Mr. Bs. limitation intimates he acknowledgeth And then by like reason this is not to be charged on me for that I deny infants visible churchmembership that I leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil sith I leave them in a neutral state of which more anon 3. I shall examine the charge on my Doctrine which I deny by denying the minor of Mr. Bs. syllogism 4. Though Mr. B. call the passages in my Apology p. 64. vain yet it will appear there 's no vanity in any of them 5. The argument by which I proved that unbaptized persons may be in Christs visible Kingdome which Mr. B. confesseth did fitly oppose Mr. Ms. imputation of leaving them all in the Devils visible Kingdome to whom we denied Baptism I think will serve against Mr. Bs. opinion For if it be true that infants are admitted into the visible Church by Baptism which is his position p. 24 25. then they are out of it afore they are baptized for afore admission none is in but without and if so according to Mr. Bs. doctrine infants are in the visible Kingdome of the Devil sith he denies a third estate and the horrid consequence is to be charged on Mr. Bs. doctrine not on mine 6. Mr. Bs. way of charging my doctrine is at vain as Mr. Ms. Thus it proceeds For if it be certain as you say that no infants are members of the visâ—ble Church they are out of it And then I argue thus If there be no third estate on earth but all are either in the visible Church of Christ or in the visible Kingdome of the Devil then that doctrine which puts them out of the visible Church of Christ doth leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil But that there is no third state but that all the world is in one of the two Kingdomes I prove thus The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called out of the world and Christ faith he hath chosen them out of the world and that they are not of the world and in the same place divers times call's the Devil the Prince of this world Joh. 12.31 14.30 16.11 15.19 18.36 17.6 16. And the Apostle calleth him the God of the world 2 Cor. 4.4 So then if the Devil be the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church
being opposed to giving saving faith and no person said to be hardned but he that wants saving faith and he that wants being hardned though hee should have historical so that if hardning be a privation of both yet it hath its denomination onely from the privation of saving faith And for Mr Bls. reason hee would have me consider first the conclusion of it is not to the present point For if the Jewes might not bee said to fall from a saving faith yet their unbelief mentioned Rom. 11.30 might bee and was a privation not onely of historical faith but also a saving else Mr. Bl. must say they had a saving faith though not historical which is a palpable absurdity for then a person may have a saving faith and not an historical and the unbelieving Jewes had a saving faith and consequently the shewing mercy must bee not onely a conferring an historical faith but also a saving 2. The maâ—or is not true universally taken All that which the Jews to this time want is that from which they fell For they want their Temple sacâ—ifiâ—es Priesthood c. and yet they fell not from them Third the argument is thus retorted That which the Jewes to this time want is that from which they fell let Mr. Bl. take that into consideraâ—ion But to this day they want even a saving faith Ergo they fell from a saving faith Such ill hap hath Mr. Bls. arguing yet as one whose fingers did itch to bee dealing with mee hee scribbles further Whereas I alledged Ephes. 2.12 to prove the unbelief of the Gentiles in times past mentioned Rom 11.30 was not onely a privation of historical but also of saving faith Mr. Bl. puts these frivolous questions to mee Were they not without a dogmatical â—aith Were they not aliens and strangers so much as from the Commonwealth of Israel To which I answer they were and ask him Whether they were not without a saving faith And if so the shewing mercy is opposed to the noâ— giving a saving faith and Mr. Bls. position most absurd that the faith here to wit Rom 11.20 where alone the word faith is used in that Chapter is historical and not saving Mr. Bl. adds And though in some sense every regenerate professing Christian is without CHRIST without God without hope respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him yet that text is manifestly abused when it is applied to any of Christian profession The whole must be carried on in a due application of it Gentiles in the flesh aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Answ. Though I finde no emendation of it in Mr. Bls. Table of Errata yet I do conceive regenerate is printed for unregenerate otherwise the speech were more grosly false then I shall imagine Mr. Bl. would thus deliver And it beeing so I conceive no abuse of it to have applied it to meer visible professors of Christianity among the Gentiles if the words were added to it which Mr. Bl. would have joyned For they were Gentiles in the flesh aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel without Christ without God without hope Nevertheless I know not what this makes to infringe my inference from Ephes. 2.12 to prove the unbelief Rom. 11.30 to have been a privation of saving faith Master Bl. denies not this sense of the words that the Ephesians in their infidelity were without Christ without God without hope respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him and sure they that were thus were without saving faith except Mr. Bl. imagine they had a saving faith who had not so much as an historical Nor is it denied the same state to bee described Rom. 11.30 which is described Ephes. 2.12 and therefore my inference stands notwithstanding this passage of Mr. Bl. He further saith And for his observation that it occasioned the Apostles exclamation O altitudo O the depth c. v. 33. Sure the goodness of God bringing the Gentiles who were dogs Matth. 15.26 unto the glory of children and the severity of God in casting out the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 might well occasion this exclamation in the Apostle as he had called to behold the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards the Gentiles goodness He might well cry out upon the greatest turne of providence that ever the world saw which in ages past had beene hid and the Angels desired to looke into O the depth c. Answ. True but was this goodness or severity in respect of a meer visible Churchstate or was it not also in respect of their state in the invisible Church Sure the thing had not been so admirable if it had not been in respect of the later as well as the former and Writers and Preachers usually apply it to silence the objection against absolute election and reprobation concerning their everlasting state as if it imported unmercifulness and injustice incompetent to God and it seems so like the passage Rom. 9.19 20 21 22 23 24. that me thinks if Mr. Bl. did compare them he should judge both places meant of the same thing and which iâ— an irrefragable argument it is clear Rom. 11.33 hath reference to what he said before v. 11 12. which is manifestly meant of their estate of salvation and reprobation and therefore must be so meant v. 33. What Mr. Bl. adds concerning my speech about Mr. G. and the Assembly is through mistake as if I had censured Mr. G. as like Plautus his miles gloriosus in his disposition whereas I censured him onely in respect of those words there used which was right however in other things he were without gall from which nevertheless that in his writings against me he was not altogether free is shewed in my Apology sect 6. And for Mr. Bls. conceit that where one degree of boasting is ascribed to Mr. G. one hundred will be ascribed to me by them that read our writings it is not unlikely if they see through Mr. Bls. spectacles which make things seem black that are white and make small â—illocks seem hills But I find cause to make it part of my Letany From the unrighteous and hard censures of Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and others of my Antagonists good Lord deliver me What I said of the Assembly shewed no more boldness then was meer It is too apparent by the dealing with Mr. Coleman my selfe and others that the stream of voices in the Assembly went to establish all after the Scottish mode without a through examination of what was alledged to the contrary except what was objected were backed by a very considerable party in Parliament or Army or City of London It is no more boldness in me to assault such an Assembly then it was in a particular dissenting brother My weapons I assâ—ult them with are such as the Holy Scriptures yeeld and my interpretations such as my adversaries themselves give and my arguments and answers are the very same which they use in
other disputes against Prelates and Arminians and with thâ—se weapons which M. Bl. disdainfully like a Goliath terms reeds or bulrushes I am no more afraid to assault the Assembly of Divine at Westminster then to assault Bakewel Hussey and such like scriblers To my 9th argument from parallel places Mr. Bl. tels me Mr. Hudson pag. 132. hath not onely affirmed but proved that the Text 1 Cor. 12.13 is meant of the Church as visible Answ. I have viewed the place and find Mr. Hudson speaking thus in answer to the objection But this is meant of the invisible company of believers he saith it is true but it is spoken of them as visible So that Mr. Hudson affirms the same with me that 1 Cor. 12.13 must be understood of the invisible Church yet in respect of that which is there said of them something is spoken of them as visible To my allegation of Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs of the same body and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel not by an outward ordinance but by giving of faith according to election Ergo the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 parallel to it is not by an outward ordinance bâ—t by giving faith according to election Mr. Bl. thus in his flirting fashion answers Oh that Mr. T. spake truth then as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 All England in statu quo should be saved in the sense that Mr. T. would understand salvation whether we be by descent Brittains Saxons or Normans we are Gentiles and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by faith according to election Answ. Not so unless by Gentiles were meant every Gentile which a freâ—h man in the University would correct Mr. Bl. in who knows an indefinite proposition not to be equipollent to an universal incontingent matter It is said Acts 11.18 thâ—n hath God given to the Gentiles repentance unto life yet it follows nor he hath done so to every Gentile Mr. Bl. adds Sure I am this Text is meant of Gospel glory in ordinance dispensed by the Apostles ministery Answ. Sure I am that to be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakers together of his promise in Christ by the Gospel imports more then a meer visible Churchstate even an estate of righteousness union with Christ and inheritance of eternal life And I doubt not but many of his Auditors would correct Mr. Bl. if he taught otherwise at any Lecture of Christians of ordinary understanding Yet he he saith further And as to the Jews appertained the glory and the promises Rom. 9.4 5. so now the glory and promises belong to the Gentiles And as many Jews as fell not off still enjoy this glory with the Gentiles and so both make one new man Ephes 2.15 The visible state of the Jews was a distinct body from the Gentiles Now upon this glorious call they are one new man or new body Answ. The glory and promises meant Rom. 9 4 5. did never belong to the Gentile believers in the Christian Church nor do the believing Jews still enjoy that glory with the Gentiles though both make one new man yet not the meer visible Church is that one man or body but the Church invisible reconciled to God by Christs death as the Text it self shews Ephes. 2.15 16 17 18 19. Mr. Bl tels me The ingraffing is not by giving faith of election nor is it an act of admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance but it is by Gods giving of faith in and by Gospel ordinances to give assent to Gospel mysteries and make profession of them Answ. I have proved before it is more then the giving of an historical faith however this concession in the close serves my purpose For if this be the ingraffing then they onely that thus do assent and make profession are ingraffed But infants do not thus assent and make profession Ergo they are not ingraffed and consequently the Text Rom. 11.16 17. alledged by the Assembly Mr. G. Mr. M. c. for admission of infants with parents as with the Jews is brought obtorto collo plainly against the meaning of it What Mr. Bl. adds that Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. there is an ingraffing into Christ mentioned but none into the Church is as vain as the rest there being no ingraffing into Christ by faith but it is also into the Church invisible who is Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 The Scriptures I have produced are proved to be meant of the Church invisible because the things said in those Scriptures are such as agree to none other and they appear to be parallel by the indentity of the matter all expressing the state of Gentile believers upon their effectual calâ—ing It is Mr. Bls. false charge that the Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all arguments a pari This calumny is reâ—elled in the 2d part of this Review sect 3. As for my 10th argument whether the faith in the testimonies cited be meant of justifying and the election to eternal life needs no other decision then the very words which I took from Marlorat without searching into the Authors own books because I had them not of my own and I saw it needless to look further If the words be ambiguous the Authors intended to deceive if elsewhere they speak against me they gainsay themselves neither of which Mr. Bl. should charge them with if he regarded their credit In Mr. Bls. arguments sect 3. the first is answered before in vindicating my 4th argument I deny the major of the 2d which is answered in the 2d part of this Review sect 6. pag. 66 67. In the 3d. the minor is false that the priviledge of ingraffing is the priviledge of every member of the visible Church in that which is added to prove it to be the priviledge of ordinances if the major be universal it is false besides the argument may be retorted In the 4th I deny the major and have often answered the inference that then I must maintain falling away from true faith that by my exposition the falling away of particular persons from the true justifying faith they had in their own persons is not maintained but the falling away of the people of one age from that which their predecessors in a former age had In the 5th if the minor be meant of a casting onely out of a visible Churchstate it is denied nor is it proved Matth 21 43. For the Kingdome of God not onely notes the outward Churchstate but also the rule of Christ in their hearts and protection of them by his spirit In the 6th the conclusion is granted That which Mr. Bl. saith that the body of believing Jews and Christian Gentiles called by the Apostle one new man Ephes. 2.15 are capable of no other ingraffing then that which is visible and the body of them entitled new as the Jews
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
be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen Answ What I said before I say still without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gal. 2.15 are two full parallel Scriptures is but a dream there being neither agreement in scope matter words or sense between them Not in scope For 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. the Apostles scope is â—o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion Gal. 2.15 his scope is to determine by what we are justified not in matter for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other and the holiness or uncleanness of the children the other of Jews and Gentils acding to their different national state nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15 which is used 1 Cor 7.14 nor can the sense be agreeing For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14 because then the children of the Corinthians should bee Jews by nature which was impossible they being born of Gentile parents for such were the Corinthians 1 Cor. 12.2 Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature that is holy by birth from believing parents any where else found in Scripture Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Churchstate as if hee meant it thus we who are members of the visible Church or have this priviledge to bee in the Covenont of grace by nature in that wee are born of believing parents For they are said to bee Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents even those whose parents were idolaters as Aâ—az Manasseh or any other of that line were Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles and the children of the most holy Proselites yet were not Jews by nature nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace for that was alwais to them who were believers whether Jewes or Gentils and the covenant whereby the Jews had priviledge was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs but here the opposition to the Gentiles and the occasion shews Jews to bee taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots If any ask who are meant by we and why here is mentioned Jews by nature and why they are opposed to the Gentiles and they termed sinners I answer the words seem plainly to be a part of Pauls speech to Peter and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision mentioned v. 12 13. and the sense is We though we are Jews by nature or even we who are Jews by natural birth and this mentioned because they had the Law peculiarly given them as Piscator in his Analysis Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est Or as the opposite term sinners of the Gentiles intimates knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses and therefore if any certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ and even we have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law it is not equal that wee should as Peter did at Antioch dissemble our liberty in Christ compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness and so not walke uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense in which in the ordinary acception among the Jewes it was taken for men that observed not the law opposed to the righteous Matth. 9.13 Luke 15.1 2 7 10. 18.9 13. and many more places And in this sense it is taken v. 17. we our selves also are sound sinners that is we our selves also are deprehended convinced or proved to be prophane breakers or despiseâ—s of the law which the Gentiles did and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1 2 3. and that Paul doth not any more reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3 then he doth with them that are alive at Christs comming opposite to them who are dead in Christ 1 Thes. 4.17 though he use the first person plural in both for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself Acts 23 1. Philip. 3.4 5 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person Ephes. 2.3 used often in speeches whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them or to insinuate into their affections or for such like reason Out of all which I infer 1. That Jews by nature is not put Gal. 2.15 to intimate a birth-priviledge of the children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Churchmembers but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace For that were clean opposite to his intention which was to shew that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace but to intimate that the law was given to them or rather they studious of it and Zelots for it and therefore if any they should be justified by it as Paul in a like place Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it it is ascribed to the law and their observing of it not to the new Covenant of grace 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers and so agreeing to their infants much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles but in respect of their manners either onely or chiefly and so not competent to infants And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15 a fit Text for his Sermon in which he asserted infants birth-priviledge of believing Gentiles though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter that he hath truly stated the the question set it upon the right basis and well fortified it and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to colour his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14 with Gal. 2.15 yet I say still and have such a gift of impudence as to aver that both Mr.
sanctified in or to or by the wife 2. The children in such a state are holy as if they had been both believers Answ. The scope of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.12 13 14. can be no other then the resolving of the doubt in the Corinthians which Mr. Sydenham truly saith he answered v. 12 13. and then gives v. 14. an argument to prove it Now therein is no speeial Gospel priviledge held forth For 1. if any priviledge be there assigned it is to the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever for he is said to be sanctified But sure an unbeliever remaining an unbeliever hath no special Gospel priviledge Ergo. 2. The unbeliever is put there not to shew any meliority of condition to himself but to take away the doubt which was concerning him as defiling their society So that the meaning is not the unbeliever is a gainer by his wife but the unbeliever brings no damage to her in respect of the thing in doubt concerning the lawfulness of continuing together in marriage use by his unbelief there is no advantage mentioned to either of them but a determination that there is not that disadvantage from the one as necessitated to leave the other Nor is there any thing that carries the shew of an argument a majori The Apostle doth noâ— say they have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel therefore much more may live together Yea such an argument had been far from being strong there being no arguments usually weaker then such if any disparity may be shewed they are quickly enervated And in this thing the proposition would have been false upon which such an argument must turn as its hinge to wit They that have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel may much the rather live together For 1. it would have been from that which is meerly extrinsecal and accidental to marriage society Gospel priviledges neither establishing nor dissolving marriage society which is lawfull as well among them who have no Gospel priviledge as those that have 2. The proposition were false for then if the unbelieving whore have Gospel advantage as I conceive Mr. S. will not deny any more then other Paedobaptists do by the believing fornicator they may live together so that if the fornicator being a believer beget a holy child on an unbelieving whore or what ever other Gospel priviledge it is the unbeliever hath by the believer imagine to cast out Devils in Christs name though she be not joyned to the Church to prophesie in Christs name or to do wonders by this Gospel priviledge they are allowed to live together in fornication Which are monstrous absurdities following Mr. Ss. conceit But he tels us That the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state is clear 1. Soâ—eza â—eza affirms that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither can it hold sense with the former words but as thus read And if it had not been the Apostles proper meaning to shew the special priviledge the believing party hath notwithstanding the unbeliever he would have â—nely said the husband is sanctified to the wife and the wife to the husband that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence And the Apostâ—e would never have made an argument of four terms when three could onely satisfie for all know that an argument with four terms is most deceitfull and false Answ. 1 The reason hath no strength in it the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side Ergo the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state For there may be exprâ—ssed an advantage on the believers side as suppose her liberty her quiet of conscience c. and yet the thing from whence it is inferred no Gospel priviledge but a thing common to unbelievers as in case a bâ—liever doubt of the lawfull eating of an infidels meat offered to an Idol and iâ— be resolved as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27. from the right God hath to all creatures here is the advantage on the believers side the quiet of his conscience and yet no Gospel priviledge held forth but such as is common to unbelievers the lawfull eating of what was sold in the shambleâ— 2. Mr. Ss. antecedent that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side and there fixeth it is contrary to what he said before that the argument is from an eminent advantaâ—e they had together in the Gospel for if they had the eminent advantage together it was no morâ— put or fixed on the believers side then on the unbelievers 3. It is so far from being true that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side that it is true rather on the contrary if any advantage be exprest it is put on the unbelievers side for the unbeliever is said to be sanctified not the believer 4. It is not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband as believing and that which Mr. Sydenham alledgeth to prove it is of no force For the reading in two Copies is not sufficient to countervail the multitude of Copies which have it otherwise it being more likely that the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made by some Scribe then by the Apostle at first who v. 13. used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without it And for the sense it holds â—s good sense without it as it did v. 13. The unbeliever is mentioned not to shew a special priviledge to the believer but because the occasion of the doubt was from his infidelity and therefore that could not be omitted without omitting that in which was the force of the objection which could not be distinctly satisfied without mentioning it and by putting it in there are not four terms as unskilfully Mr. S. intimates but by omitting it there come to be four terms the conclusion to be proved being this The wife may live with her unbelieving husband and the premises these That wife may live with her husband who is sanctified to her But so is the unbelieving husband to his wife Ergo. But of this the Reader may see more at large the first part of this Review sect 14. 2. Saith Mr. S. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument then is ever used in Scripture to express a meer lawfull or common priviledge as to be sanctified in the wife and the children to be holy expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil or natural or legal conjunction being singled out in Scripture to hold forth the best state of persons in relation to God and his use Answ. 1. Were all this true as it is not yet Mr. Ss. conclusion is not proved thereby For though the terms should never express a meer lawfull or common priviledge a civil or natural or legal conjunction and that they are singled â—ut in
have cause to repent of our judgements â—nfants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of infants we trust Gods word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years is much of it false as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents thay are comprehended under the promise with their parents God would have us to look on them as separated to himself by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and all impertinent forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgement of charity but of certainty from their profession which is visible and so are qualified for Baptism not from hopes of real holiness or faith of Covenant holiness which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession What he adds That holy is a pure religious word that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation that else were c. hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue to be in a peculiar state of seperation to God visible Churchmembers with the believing parent contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted What he adds of cold comfort in my sense and of strength and sweetness in his is alike frovolous For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory then so far as it might satisfie their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle and not done at all by his way For what is a priviledge of the children which perhaps they shall never have or if they have it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion I have done with this scribler I shall a little examine what some others have said with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit and hasten to an end SECT LXXVII Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7 9 10. is shewed to be succesless and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism THere is a Treatise intituled The Covenant of God with Abraham opened by Mr. William Carter which pretends to clear the duty of Infant Baptism and in his Epistle to the Reader saith the root of this matter is the Covenant of God with Abraham which because of the eminency of the Author and the publishing it in observance as is said of the commands of the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London rather then for any shew of strength in the discourse I shall examine that if this Review come to their hands they also may discern their mistakes Which I think necessary to be done because he also as other Paedobaptists use to do is not afraid upon his own conjectures for they are no better to charge us who baptize not infants as breaking Abrahams Covenant as small friends to Christs Kingdome waving and neglecting the right way of increasing that Kingdome and of exalting his Throne and power in the world taking-up ways unnatural unsafe and false Letâ—s then see what he writes Afore he meddles with the point of infant Baptism which he saith is the thing he especially intended in his discourse he endeavours to deduce the Christian Sabbath as it is termed from Heb. 4. I omit that he saith p. 3. that Heb. 2.15 16. the birthright vendible is their priviledges in the Church and worship of the Gospel and that p. 6. he expoundâ— the holding â—ast â—he confidence or liberty and the rejoycing of the hope Heb. 3.6 by holding fast the ordinances and priviledges of the Gospel Which if he mean as he seems to do of the oâ—twarâ— priviledges and worship it appears that he mistakes sith the birthright not to be sold and the confidence and rejoycing of hope are greater matters which no hypocrite may attain to and are plainly intimated Heb. 12.14 15. to be the seeing of God the attaining his grace and the estate Evangelical mentioned v. 22 23 24. which they might sell though they never had it by their Apostacy from their profession of Christ through whom they were in expectation of it at least in appearance And in like manner the boldness liberty confidence or râ—joycing of their hope must needs be of something yet attainable and not to be attained without holding it to the end v. 6 14. and which no unbelievers could attain to which are not true of bare outward Chuâ—ch priviledges and Gospel worship but of that salvation mentioned Heb. â—â— the grace brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13 whereby we are Gods house Heb 3.6 are partakers of Christ v. 14. But I shall insist somewhat on that he saith p. 8. that by to day if ye will hear his voice in that Psal. 95.7 is meant the Christian Sabbath day by whiâ—h he means the day which in the New Testament is termed the Lords day or first day in the week which I conceive not right for these reasons 1. The day Heb. 4.7 iâ— a limited or definite day and that must needs imply this meaning This is the day in which if ye hear his voyce and harden not your hearts ye may enter into â—ods rest if ye do not this day ye will come short Which if true then as Mr. C. expounds it though they should hear the voice of Christ and not harden their hearts on the week day yet they should not enter into the rest promised which I think will be counted absurd and evacuate the hopes by all the week day Lectures 2. From Hâ—b 3.13 I thus argue To day Heb 3.7 is the same with the space of time which iâ— called â—o day v. 13. This is so evident in the Text that every one that reâ—ds the â—ext will easily perceive it sith it is plain that the calling it to day is meant â—f the calling it iâ— that place v. â— and the words lest any of you be hardened shew it But to day Heb. 2.13 is meant of any day oâ— every day wherein Christians might exhort one another therefore not restrained to the Lords day but either extended to tâ—e whole space of time they live
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that
be laid aside when an argument is drawn from them as here from the word Sacraâ—ent He adds Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the original Answ. It is but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined 2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament express'd in Scripture This he saves is untrue in the sequel For what consequence There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more then in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Answ. It was not my sequel but this therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation The term grace or grace of God I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent quaâ—ities in us or good acts proceeding from us and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness because we are said to be justified by grace and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them the thing had been otherwise expressed and that such an expression as the gift by grace or the like were used yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation and that faith is a gift by grace infused inspired or wrought by the spirit of God Mr. Cr. saith further untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11 a seal of the righteousness of faith This is the judgement of the Ancients and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11 nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament is shewed before and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant yet not as there it is expressed a seal of the righteousness of faith But of this I have said enough before sect 31. What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament that it is a visible signe of invisible grace as imperfect which I proved by instances was without a miscellany of absurdities â—f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications Luk. 4.18 Joh. 3.44 and so of invisible grace and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition Christs washing his Disciples feet shewed his love and humility ergo by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word which are invisible graces according to Austin and according to his definition Sacraments And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism ordained by Christ yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute and if it had holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament being apâ—ointed 1 Tim. 2.8 And for the addition in the Catechism as a means to receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I know no Scripture that ever made Ciâ—cumcision the Passeover the Lords Supper or Baptism meanes to receive invisible grace and how faâ— and in what manner it assures I have before sect 31. and elsewhere shewed Enough of Mr. Crs. vain praâ—â—le in this section Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized but affirming it of viâ—ible He tels me 1. This distinction is not fitly applied for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembeâ—ship But 1. however it were meaâ—t the expression was God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression 2. It was fitly applied also to â—lâ—er my meaniâ—g and to free my words from contradiction 2. He tels me my proposition is not true for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized then all baâ—tized before they being visible members were to be baptized again But what is this but wrangling sith the proposition was his own and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense of them that were not yet baptized He tels me of the state of the question between us which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words He adds Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible now if all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow they may be baptized whether visible by profession or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants But what a dotage is this Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember Is not this a contradiction to say all invisible members are visible How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church but by profession of faith The like dotage is in what he saith after that there is an intrinsecal connexion of thâ—se termes actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature which makes this proposition to be aeterâ—ae veritatis those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel For is the one to be defined by the other Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in tiâ—e not essences If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and â—ogical principles I am yet to seek in them as having not heard or read of such principles before And if God did promise before the Law foreâ—ell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of â—aith then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel and so justified then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians about the condition of the Covenant and justification false and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to