Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
be baptizable That the Covenant Deut. 29.14 15. should â—e made virtually radically with us Gentiles is a doâ—age with a witness not onely the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses not the Covenant made to Adam Abraham David the New or better Covenant If the Covenant may stand in one then it is not necessary that a people nation seed body should be in covenant and consequently it may stand without infants The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16 the Fathers were the root But Mr. Rutherfurd adds Hence Anabaptists without all reason say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness but of real internal and true holiness onely of the invisible body predestinated to life for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were without doubt a part of the rooâ— Answ. Anabaptists if we must be so named do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16 is meant of real internal and true holiness and consequently the persons there said to be holy are all of the invisible body predestinated to life and no other but such there meant yet they deny not that the holiness of the Covenant and Church theâ—e meant were made visible by its working the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life and that it is not said without all reason might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd if he had read my Examen part 3 sect 7. my Apol. sect 14. pag. 67. Review part 1. sect 1 c. part 3. sect 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds that invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were withoue doubt part of the root that which Anabaptists say is not said without reason and that demonstrative For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded then it is included and if included together with external visible holiness then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy and consequently no reprobate but onely the predestinate to life And if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be part of the root and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy must have invisible holiness also But Mr. Rutherfurd ads Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church as made visible and of the visible collective body of the Jews not of onely real and invisible holiness 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias If the root be holy the branches are holy And it is a New testament-Testament-truth of perpetual verity If the Fathers be holy so must the sons The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Supper so have the children but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onely and of real and internal holiness For neither in Old or New Testament is it true if the Fathers be predestinated to life justified and sanctified and saved so must the children be Answ. The term holy Rom. 11.16 notes onely real and invisible holiness in that place though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary If the Fathers be holy so must the sons is most false not onely being understood of invisible but also of visible holiness of Churchright to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Suppâ—r Though the father were holy visibly by profession of the God of Israel yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision and the Passeover without being a Proselyte of righteousness taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe and joyning to the policy of Israel and yet even then the child of age who did not avouch the God of Israel had no right thereto Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bapâ—ism or the Lords Supper without his own profession though the parentâ— be Christians nor the infant of a believer baptized as they conceive right to the Lords Supper Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root meâ—nâ— Rom. 1.16 and every natural child a branch For then every believing parent should beare his child v. 18. and every natural child shouâ—d derive holiness from his believing parent Abrahams naturâ—l children at this day are not in the Olive nor shall be till re-ingraffed Abraham is the root not as a natural father but as Father of believers and â—one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means but through â—aith according to election Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward child of the flesh and promise taken away nor whole Israel certainly saved Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong which â—e miâ—ht have imagined would be replied to hiâ— argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity but old That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith which may be discerned by their profession in those that are come to age It is neither my Divinitâ— nor follows though Mr. Rutherfurd câ—nceives it doth on it that predestination to life and glory must bee proâ—ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits he meant from the first fruits to the luâ—p from the root and parents to the branches and children But this I say that faith and righteousness are propagated and derived from â—braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him I do not say that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body but this I say the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people the one Jews who were then broken off from the Olive tree which is the invisible Church of the elect the other Gentiles then graffed in yet not all the Gentiles nor one nation wholly and entirely but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away were preached to had a national election and external calling were in the room of the Jewes â—id partake of the fatness of the Olive is so fully opened in the places before cited that I think it unnecessary to add here any more Onely whereas he makes it an absurdity that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Anti-Paedobaptism OR THE THIRD PART BEING A full REVIEW of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism IN WHICH The Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant and Initial Seal Infants Visible Church-membership Antiquity of Infant-Baptism are refelled AND The Writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal Mr. Richard Baxter Mr. John Geree Mr. Thomas Blake Mr. Thomas Cobbet Dr. Nathaniel Homes Mr. John Drew Mr. Josiah Church Mr. William Lyford Dr. Daniel Featley Mr. John Brinsley Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham Mr. William Carter Mr. Samuel Rutherford Mr. John Crag Dr. Henry Hammond Mr. John Cotton Mr. Thomas Fuller Mr. John Stalham Mr. Thomas Hall and others are examined And many points about the Covenants and Seals and other Truths of weight are handled By JOHN TOMBES B D. ISA. 5.20 Wo unto them that call evill good and good evill that put darkness for light and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter LONDON Printed by E. AISOP over against the Upper Pump in Grubstreet 1657. TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland HAving presented the two former Parts of this Review to His Highness and His Council I take boldness to tender this to your Honours as those who are intrusted with the affairs of these Nations in which are many Churches of Christ whose safety and welfare doth much depend under Christ on your wisedome and uprightness that it may serve to justifie your Honours in allowing those who agree with me in the â—oint herein discussed liberty employment and maintainance alike with dissenters Wherein your equity and wisedome is very conspicuous and laudable notwithstanding the clamours and practises of those our opposites who would have the ship of this Commonwealth so ordered that the power of it should all incline to one side to the endangering of the whole 'T is true the asserting of this truth hath heretofore been unhappily managed partly by reason of the conjunction of some errours very dangerous in the Assertors of this truth and partly by reason of the violence of spirit in them and their opposites which have occasioned hard Lawes against them and great hatred towards them Nor do I know any likelihood but that still not onely about this but also about any other point in difference when one party seeks to oppress the other there will be much unquietness unless Governours become moderatours between them In the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Ordered to be printed 4. Martii 1647. I read these words The name of Anabaptism hath indeed contracted much odium by reason of the extravagant opinions and practises of some of that name in Germany tending to the disturbance of the Government and peace of all States which opinions and practices we abhor and detest But for their opinion against the Baptism of Infants it is onely a difference about a circumstance of time in the administration of an Ordinance wherein in former ages as well as this learned men have differed both in opinion and practice And though wee could wish that all men could satisfie themselves and joyn with us in our judgment and practise in this point yet herein wee held it fit that men should bee convinced by the Word of God with gentleness and reason and not beaten out of it by force and violence And yet May 2. 1648. there was an Ordinance which made it punishable with imprisonment to affirm that the Baptism of Infants is unlawfull or that Infants Baptism is void and that such persons are to be baptized again Notwithstanding which it is to be acknowledged with all thankfulness to His Higness and your Honours that we enjoy our Peace and Liberty as Dissenters do which they who value not forget the goodness of God and make forfeiture of their own good For those who so do I plead not but for that Truth and Practise which is delivered and appointed by Christ which should be encouraged not suppressed by Governours For this I am moved to appear out of Conscience of my duty to Christ commiseration of them who have been condemned and injured for avouching my position and my engagement by solemn Covenant enjoyned by Parliament to endeavour Reformation in Doctrine and Worship according to Gods Word And do humbly present it to your Honours craving that if any Lawes do remain in force against it they may be repealed And that while we walk according to the rule of Christ Liberty Peace Encouragement may be granted to us as to others who have joyned in the Common Cause which will be a motive to us the more affectionately to pray for your Honours prosperous and happy proceedings in repairing the Breaches and building up this Commonwealth whereto you are advanced and for which I am Your Honours Humble and Devoted Servant JOHN TOMBES TO The christian Reader THough all personal Pleas and Narrations are suspected to be partial and are usually judged to have something of ostentation or dissembling oâ— some such inordinate affection which may abate their credit and esteem yet the practises of opponents in Controversies and the great prejudice to the Truth and person opposed they create thereby and the difficulty for persons who are not actors in such contentions to understand the truth without them make them necessary Doubtless if such pleas were not necessary the Apostle Paul would not have thought his course justifiable who hath written one Epistle to wit the second to the Corinthians almost wholly Apologetical for himself that the misunderstanding of himself and wayes might not be advantage to Seducers for hindering the success of his preaching It is true my credit and esteem is nothing comparable to the Apostles the Church and Truth of God may stand though I be buried in perpetual silence yet sith I am a Preacher of the Gospel as Paul was absit verbo invidia and my labours therein as I hope not altogether without fruit and sith the Lord seems to me to have set me though in a lower Sphere for defence of that One Baptism which Paul mentions Ephes. 4.5 as one of the chief points of Christianity and Heb. 6.2 is counted as a foundation point I assure my self Paul's practise doth justifie mine and that I should be wanting not onely to mine own credit but also to that truth which is dearer then my credit if I should pass by with silence those misrepresentations whereby both are abused and the mindes of men alienated from them Which is the more necessary because of the great repute which my Antagonists have in this generation and their confident speeches and their incessant endeavours upon all occasions in Pulpits Presses Disputes Conferences to represent the way I avouch as dangerous my self as instrumental to an evil designe of perverting and dividing the Churches of God unto which the proneness of men to uphold an Errour inveterate and speciously pretended to be approved and blessed by God and the contrary opinion accursed besides the advantages it hath for their carnal ease and
differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants and the ablest Protestants themselves 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-constiâ—ution and the ordination of Elders who have no other baptism but that in infancy 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest 16. Whether it be not a signe of injustice and want of love to truth or adherence to a party in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism and refuse to read or heâ—r what the opposâ—â—s say though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practise for them 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscariages of persons either dead or strangers on that doctrine or practise which countenanceth not them or to persons who are no way abettors of them becaus of agreement in one opinion 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose inveigh against their Brethren for holding practising that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confessâ—d to be from Christ and deal rigorously with them for not owning iâ— do not as the Papists who impose with cruelty their own addiâ—ions oâ— those who otherwise are not denied to hold thâ— true faith aâ—d practâ—sâ— 20. Whether such pretencâ—s as are made for Infant baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a sufficient plea for baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a suâ—fâ—cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 the Apostles constantly practised And sith Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministred so many interrogatories to me I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways 1. In giving such a title to his book of Plâ—in Scripture proof of Infants baptism when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it yea it 's confessed by himself that it is not plainly determined in Scripture p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversie is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he haâ—h done chiefly the institution of Bapâ—ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism p. 299 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91 to 96. 3. In coyning a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents of which the Scripture is altogether silent 4. In his devising â—n ordinancâ— of infants visible membership in the Christian Church of which there is no foot step in all the Bible 5. In his many years clamorous abuses and some kind of violent persecutions of my self and others of my judgement for not acknowledging these figments of his but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect of of my praecursor or elsewhere shewed to be so 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism about Christs institution Mat. 28.19 in my praecurs p. 66. in his Praefest morat sect 16. which is noted in the 2d Part of the Review p. 66 67. which sure being from Christs institution deserved better consideration 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism though but an humane tradition on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithfull and their seed which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants 10 In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church which he cannot prove in his scornfull expressions in the dispute and his books in his injurious insinuations of me as if I were blinded or hardened occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errours thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth and which is worst of all weakning my hands in the work of Christ and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me or permitting me there to preach in publike None of which nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere I pray God may be laid to his charge I have no more to add but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right inâ—elligence of their actions so it may be in this and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed a Law and Ordâ—nance of infants visible Church membership no where extant of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily of a command in force now Gen. 17.9 of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it of baptisms conferâ—ing Grace c. will discern their errour and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers profane excommunicate parents or proparents and such like endeavour to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be and that goâ—ly paâ—ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ and that the use of baptism is as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized which shâ—ws infants are not baptized sith thâ—y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all and not to look upon it as their childrens priviledge but as it was by Christ appointed by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS which is the prayer of Thy loving Brother and real
appointed by God is will-worship But the ordinary baptizing of Infants of Believers Churched or unchurched though by a lawful Minister is worship not appointed by God Ergo. The Major is confirmed from the very definition of will-worship which is A worship of God nor appointed by him but taken up according to the command of man out of Mat. 15.9 The Minor is proved by demanding a Scripture wherein God appointed Infant-baptism In answer hereto in conference with me it was once denied that Infant-baptism was used as a worship of God But if so then it is no holy thing no Sacrament no profaneness to contemn it no matter if a Midwife do it with many more of the like absurdities Master Blake in his answer to my letter ch 13. pag. 92. Vindic. foed ch 44. denies Infant-Communion Bell-baptism to be will-worship he makes will-worship then when men devise an Ordinance but not when it is onely an abuse profanation misapplication of an instituted worship to a wrong subject And Master Marshall page 195. of his Defence would put me to prove that all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the Ordinances are to be applyed must be expressely set down in the N. T. pag. 196. There is no absolute necessity that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the several sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to be applied must be set down in precept or Apostolical example equivalent to a precept found in the N.T. pag. 205. The point about Infant-baptism toucheth but a circumstance of age In which speeches Mr. M. seems to make Infant-baptism but an arbitrary circumstance and if so then much injury was in the first use of his Sermon in which he made the denial of Infant-baptism odious as if it were as bad or worse than the facts of Herod and Hazael in slaying Infants then much guilt of oppression lies on them that have denied place in the Ministery scourged imprisoned fined banished put to death men for opposing or not owning Infant-baptism and very unrighteous have been their declamations who in Pulpits and elsewhere have inveighed against them as Hereticks Sectaries c. censured their opinion as intolerable as Maresius qu. 6. their practice as Sacrilege as Master Blake vindic foed ch 4. If Master M. do indeed think the point of Infant-baptism to touch but a circumstance of age and that it needs no divine institution then it is an indifferent ceremony with him such as the power of the Church may appoint and if so it is no otherwise blameable to omit it than it is to omit any other Church-constitution But the truth is it is false which he saith That the matter toucheth onely a circumstance of age for indeed it toucheth the qualification of the person to be Baptized and the very end and use of Baptism which are the essentials of it as it is a Sacrament which is that the person Baptized do thereby testifie his profession of Repentance and Faith in Christ and covenant to be his as appears by the very phrase used of being Baptized into the name of the Trinity Mat. 28.19 compared with 1 Cor. 1.13 as I have proved before Part 2. Sect. 5. And were it a circumstance onely of age yet it being determined by Christ who are to be baptized to wit Disciples and Belieâ—â—â—s it is an arrogant presumption to alter it Rightly saith Chamieâ— Panstr tom 4â— lib. 8. c. 4. Sect. 32. quae non sunt institutae circumstantiae habeto sane sibi Ecclesia ut tempus locumque celebrandi si quae sunt similia At quae instituta sunt ea ne moveto As for M. Blakes speech that a misapplication of 〈◊〉 instituted ordinance to a wrong subject is an abuse or profanation of it but not will-worship 1. It is not right For though every misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance be not will-worship yet a misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance is a will-worship when not onely the rite it self is made worship of God but also the application of it to that subject though it be but mens invention yea and such a one as alters the end and use of the ordinance as is in infant baptism bell-baptism altar-baptism infant-Communion Prayer sacrifice vows keeping solemn feasts offering incense building altars were instituted ordinances yet Jeroboams sacrificing and keeping a feast at another time than God appointed Ahaz his forming an altar after the pattern of that at Damascus Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire prayer to Saints for the dead vowes to Saints monastick profession after such a rule keeping of holy dayes to Saints and many other things among Pagans and Papists are condemned as will-worship Generally Protestants even the Assembly in their Conffession of faith chap. 29. art 4. make the lifting up reserving the elements in the Eucharist Contrary to Matth. 15.9 and chap. 21. they say the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited to his own revealed will that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men or suggestions of Satan under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holyâ—scripture yea the non-conformists have gone further in so censuring the three ceremonies cross at baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper the wearing the Surplice in holy ministrations to be will-worship as the Abridgement of the Lincolnshire Ministers petition and other writings shew and D. Morton in his Defence and D. Burges in his Rejoynder to the reply chap. 2. and elsewhere acquit them onely from will-worship in that they placed not holiness in them made them not necessary parts of worship which I presume M. Blake will not say of Infant-baptism the denial of which he counts though vainly to be sacrilege Vindic. foed chap. 40. And sure baptisms were instituted ordinances among the Jews Heb. 9.10 yet our Lord Christ applies the Prophets censure of will-worship Isai. 29.13 against the Pharises placing holiness and fear of God in their washings of hands and other things so often and in the manner they used Mark 7.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Secondly were it granted that it is not properly will-worship to misapply an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject yet if it be an abuse or profanation the matter is no whit mended with M. Blake if I put in my argument instead of the term will-worship the term profanation or abuse I presume Paedobaptists will not justify a profanation or abuse which Infant-baptism is acknowledged to be if it be not after Gods appointment or Christs institution Wherefore M. M. and the most of the paedobaptists not trusting to these evasions seek for an appointment of Infant-baptism in the institution of Infant-circumcision Gen. 17. Yet M. Baxter in his pâ—â—in Scripture proof part 1. chap. 4. c. declines the command of Circumcision for proof of Infant-baptism
which directs in this 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession It is promised that the Israelits shall be graffed in again and all Israel saved Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and we may charitably judg it will be shortly shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession 5. If a charitable judgement of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize then sure John the Baptist and the baptizers appointed had somewhere propounded that question or made inquiry into that thing but it was not so they required repentance Acts 2.38 inquired into the faith of the baptized 6. if this had been the direction baptize those that are elect or in Covenant had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others or rather have mocked them putting them to do a business not feasiable by them But this is not to be said of Christ especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession As for Mr. Chuch his conceit that shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing onely as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise I deny it For the rule is not baptize persons in the Covenant but Disciples or believers of all nations To that of the Devils making a verbal profession I have answered before That which he saith that the judgment of charity meaning that they were in Covenant was the rule by which John Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant but baptized hypocrits not a few yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins brofessing repentancc and faith for they heard them and this was their rule not the conjectural knowledg of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace SECT VIII Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance MR. Church brings in a Second objection which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance To which he answers thus A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the Infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism To which I reply If visible right ro the promise by shews of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yeilded to be aright But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an humane ivention without Scripture warrans He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction and the promise I conceive he means is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 But it is most false that that promise is made to any meer visible professors but to Abraham not to any true believers natural seed much less to any meer visible professors natural seed but onely to Aâ—rahams seed who are onely elect and true believers of the Gentils according to the spiritual part of it as is proved before Yet were it granted that not onely the Species but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe and Peter Acts 2.38 39. requires repentance for baptism of whom he sayth the promise is to you But he tels me The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it I answer whatever others do yet I disclaim that confession I have granted sundry times as Examen part Sect 15. part 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate justified adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism if it be known by special revelation for they are then known Disciples and believers But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate being in covenant nothing no more then having the promise made to him which may be afore he is born and therefore I should not yeld that of being in covenant which I would do of actual regeneration But Mr. Church makes some shew of answering the argument from Acts 2.38 39. He tels us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking â—at Gospel truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise untill they regained it by repentance Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendred by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized pag. 20. Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise and their right thereby to batism How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they raigned repentance But it is not once onely that this Author is off and on saying and unsaying at a little distance Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6 7. from Acts 2.38.39 of the promise to them and their children and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism as being the children of visible professors to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance which the Apostle supposeth they then had not even then when he said The promise is to you and your children For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done But Mr. Church flutters like
a bird in a net seeking some evation from this objection though all in vain He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8 11. and not all Jews for they were of divers languages and that they were adulti But what is this to the avoyding the objection that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance He then discourseth that repentance was in them onely in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them For in that distance from his preaching and their baptizing so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable and thence would gather if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance To which I reply 1. It is expressly said ver 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples who were many and could confer with them in that space of time and baptize them in that day though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each 2. His argument is not worth a rush notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it to prove Infant-baptism For it goes upon this frivolous supposition that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized though they shew no repentance much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance which if true the more civil and orderly persons though pharisaically minded as if they needed no repentance have much more right to baptism then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection but to strengthen it that notwithstanding the promise was to them yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance either in facto esse or in fieri either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived of which neither is to be said of Infants Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with and cast the blame of weakness onely on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is yet lest any say it is not answered I add SECT IX Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian. HIs second Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized To which I say His words are ambiguous it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church of all infants of Christians or some but conceiving it meant of all and of the visible Church of Christians I deny the Antecedent And for his ten Arguments not one proveth it The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument to which I have answered before denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God expressed Gen. 17.7 in those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But I deny the consequence also that if it were true that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church nor is it proved by that which he allegeth For they onely are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel which are strangers from the covenant Ephes. 2.12 For if it did prove that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians yet it proves not that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church but the very truth is neither the one nor the other is proved from that place for this only is asserted there that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity Idol-service then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh and out of the policy of Israel meaning the outward policy was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God meaning of it of saving Propriety for Cornelius Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel being no citizen but unclean as being a Gentile uncircumcised yet then he feared God God heard his prayers accepted his alms c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God His next Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children In the old world some were called the sons of God as children of his people Gen. 6.2 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him his children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21. and their lawfull seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they shall be converted and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his handmaid therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants The term Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud and those not infants but such as took them wives of all that they chose which could not be said of infants nor are they said to be Sons of God because children of believers but because they professed the true worship of God Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac Annot. in locum Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus Aquila and many of the Ancients recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius cap. 13. and
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
externally in covenant and Church-estate also as being yet in the Olive and Kingdom of God and not cast out untill their unbelief or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah Rom. 11.20 to which the Jewes had not as yet come Ans. A Church of the Gospel is such a company as avoucheth the Gospel the Gospel was that Jesus was the Christ to the being in the Church of the Gospel it is not sufficient that there hath not been a total or final rejection of the covenant but it is necessary there be an explicit believing and owning of Christ John 8.24 To be a people so cast off as to have the offer of grace taken from them presupposeth such a rejection Acts 13.46 Mat. 21.43 But to be a Gospel-Church or member of a Gospel-Church requires more then a non-rejection to wit an express avouching of the Gospel Non-rejection doth not make a Gospel-Church or Church-member if it did the salvage Americans that never heard of the Gospel and so have not rejected it should be a Gospel-Church and Church-members Yet that Jewish Church of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were of and those Jewes themselves had rejected Christ with much violence John 9.22 Acts 3.13 14 15. and therefore they could have no covenant or Church-right no not externally quoad homines from their standing in that Church by which they might have claimed admission into the Christian Church by baptism without repentance and faith in Christ no not though they were supposed to have been without any scandalous sin deserving excommunication or suspense from the seal But Master Cobbet is bold to avouch that this Church was a Gospel-Church visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church which to me is such a paradox as is by no means to be received For then that Church should be a Gospel-Church which did obstinately adhere to the law and they interessed in the Covenant of grace who sought righteousness by the works of the law and they a Christian Church who denyed persecuted killed Christ and avouched themselves Moses his disciples John 9.27 not Christs And if that Church and the Christian be the same essentially he that was admitted to the Jewish Church was admitted to the Christian then baptism was needless yea irrigular for the entering and admission of a believing Jew into the Christian Church contrary to that 1 Cor. 12.13 for they were in the Christian Church before in that they were in the Jewish Church essentially the same then did Peter ill to exhort them to save themselves from them Acts 2.40 then was Luke mistaken in saying v. 47. The Lord added them daily to the Church after they were converted and baptized for they were in the same Church before all which are in my apprehension palpable absurdities But Master Cobbet thus backs his assertion Unless whilst the Jewish church stood any will say there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world but a legal Church for there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Ans. the perpetual visibility of the true Church is a point in which Papists and Protestants differ The Papists assert a perpetual visibility of the Church in Pastors and people as sensible as any other society of men so that at any time one may point with his finger and say this is the Church the Protestants that though it abide always upon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certain number that constantly profess it yet this number may be very small and their profession so secret among themselves that the world and such as love not the truth shall not see them they remaining so hidden as if they were not at all Thus Doctor John White in his Way to the true Church sect 17. digress 17. sets down the difference If Master Cobbet mean as he seems to do a visible political Church in the former sense then it is no absurdity to say at some time while the Jewish Church stood there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world For at the time of Christs passion when the Disciples were scattered the shepherd being smitten Matth. 26.31 there was no such visible Evangelical Church yea some of the Papists themselves quoted by Doctor White in the same place hold that about the time of Christs passion the true faith remained in none but onely the Virgin Mary Alsted suppl panstr cath Chami de eccl l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. Dâ—inâ—e tempore passionis Christi ecclesia non erat visibilis talis scilicet in qua erant praelaâ—i subditi pastores oves Nam ecclesia visibilis non erat apud pharisaeos scribas Illi enim impudenter sceleratè errarunt But in the latter sense which the Protestants follow we can assign an Evangelical visible Church in the world distinct from the Jewish while the Jewish Church stood Alsted ubi supra Ergo ecclesia externa etiam tota deficere potest remanentibus occultis fidelibus quales tum temporis erant Simeon Anna Nicodemus c. At the time of Christs incarnation and before there was in the Protestant sense a true visible Evangelical Church in Simeon Anna and those to whom she spake who looked for redemption in Jerusalem Luke 2.38 In the time of John Baptists and Christs Ministery many baptized by John and Christs Disciples John 4.1 2. In the time of Christs passion besides the Apostles and those women who professed Joseph of Ariâ—â—thâ—a and Nicodemus are expressed John 19.38 39. to have owned Christ. And these were a distinct Church from the Jâ—wish I mean the Priests Scribes Pharisees and people who denyed Christ though not in their political government yet in their profession of faith which is necessary according to Protestants to make a company to be a visible Evangelical Church and essentially the same with the Church Christian Ames medul Th. l. 1. c. 32. Ecalesia est societus fidelium quia idem illud in professione constituit ecclesiam visibilem quod interna reali sua natura constituit ecclesiam mysticaâ—â— id est fides But Master Cobbet from his erroneous dictates would frame an answer to the argument brought from Peters words Acts 2.38 39. to prove that the imagined covenant-right is not sufficient to intitle to baptism without repentance and faith sith even of those Jewes to whom he said the promise is he pre-required repentance to baptism and thus he writes That then something further was required by Peter of the adult Jewes to actual participation of baptism and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelical Church since it was Gods onely visible Church in the time of Christs incarnation of which he lived and died a member and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal nor was it because
and privileges made to all the Israelites he tells us not and so the Reader is left to guess 4. How Pauls trouble or the reason given should hold that forth is another Riddle which needs an Oedipus if such nonsense scribbling be counted worth ones study to unfold it 2. Saith he That it 's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant Why should Paul thus break out in his affections for the loss of outward privileges if it were not such a mercy to be under them Answer It is I confess a sad thing to be excluded from any mercy of God much more to be excluded from though but an outward administration of the Covenant of grace But it is a sad thing to me that I finde a Teacher of a Church pretending so much zeal for truth to vent in print such a ridiculous conceit as if Pauls great sorrow and continual pain in his heart by reason of that for the remedy whereof he could wish himself accursed from Christ were for the exclusion from outward privileges which they might have and yet be damned and might want and yet be saved If the outward privilege were Circumcision they had it if Baptism they might have it and yet be damned And shall we think the Apostle so foolish as to be thus troubled for such a loss 3. Saith he The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant and yet not get the efficacy of it vers 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed all that were of him and yet all were not Israel that is partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant An. That which the Apostle holds forth is not as this man dotingly scribles that persons may be under the outward administration of the Covenant that is circumcised c. and yet noâ— get the efficacy of it that is have the Circumcision of the heart justification and eternal life for though this be a truth yet there 's not a word in the Apostles answer v. 6 7 8. which gives any colour for such a Paraphrase there being no mention of Circumcision or any such rite as they call the outward administration of the Covenant nor any words equipollent thereto For to be of Israel is to be descended of Jacob by natural generation as in like manner v. 7. to be the seed of Abraham and v. 8. the children of the flesh nor could such an Answer have met with the Objection which was not if the Jews were deprived of the outward administration how could Gods word stand to be a God to Abraham and his seed But thus if they were not his people to be justified and saved by Christ how could the word of God stand Gen. 17.7 Jer. 31.36 37. which seemed to promise they should be his people to be justified and saved by Christ And therefore to answer they had the outward administration though not the inward efficacy is to confirm the Objection which is that they had not that inward efficacy which the Covenant promised nor doth the Apostle deny that those saving mercies were in the promises nor think the promises salved by alleging that all had outward privileges though not saving mercies but by shewing that the saving mercies in those promises were not assured to every natural childe of Abraham or of Israel but to the choice seed distinguished from the rest by promise and peculiar calling according to election whether of Jews or Gentiles and thereby made the Israel of God v. 7 8 11 24. and so Gods words of promise stands firm to that seed of Abraham and Israel to whom it was made though the natural seed of Abraham and Israel be rejected from being Gods people It is therefore expresly cross to what the Apostle saith v. 7. which Mr. Sidenham saith that the Covenant was with Abraham and his seed all that were of him And that which he saith And so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant yet God was not mutable nor his promise though he rejected them because of their own degeneration is directly contrary to the Apostles determination that they were rejected meerly out of the absolute liberty of Gods will v. 18. which the Apostle proves in the rejection of Esau vers 11 12 13. afore he had done good or evil yea afore he was born and the speech to Moses v. 15. and the hardening of Pharaoh v. 17. And indeed if this Paraphrase of Mr. Sidenham were good then the Arminian doctrine of conditional reprobation were here expresly taught that their rejection was because of their own degeneration and consequently the election of the other to wit the Gentiles must be because of their own believing and Gods promise to be a God to them must presuppose their believing as the reason of his promise to them which is the very dregs of Pelagianism founding the difference between the called and rejected in mans will and not Gods What Mr. Sidenhaâ— saith that the Covenant was made in general with Abraham 's seed to all that came from him meaning by natural generation is contrary to the Apostles resolution v. 6 7 8. and would make God a breaker of his promise which was not of outward privileges but of saving grace and supposes the Covenant and the election not commensurate contrary to the Apostle yea to Mr. Sidenhams own words where he summs up the Apostles resolution when he saith that none are the children of the promise to whom the Covenant was made real saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts And what he saith to all children of believers the promise visibly belongs to them â—s to Abraham and his seed it 's a piece of non-sense gibberish such as Paedobaptists use according to their false Hypotheses no whit agreeing either with the promise Gen. 17.7 or the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. so often refelled by me that it is superfluous to say of it any more now As for what he adds But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that infants because children of the flesh are not under the promise I gâ—ant it but say there is enough to demonstrate that the promise of being a God Gen. 17.1 is not made to every believers childe sith it was not made to all Abrahams natural seed but to the elect of them which is enough for our purpose Mr. Sidenhams proceeds to the Text Gal. 3.16 which he grants not to be meant barely of Christ personal if saith he the promises were to Christ mystical then to all the elect as in him and so to infants as well as grown persons which I grant but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were none knows the veins of it which I also grant untill the calling shews who were elect nor do I count it any absurdity to yield it But saith
of grace in the judgement of charity and that baptism seals regeneration c. not conferred but to be conferred Dr. Th Goodwin that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump yet all make the promise I will be the God of thy seed applied to infants of believersâ— contain the promise of saving grace and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion As for the two cases he puts I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant it 's the Pedobaptists expression not mine except where I use the term to express their mind nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank that is that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made when I speak after mine own mind But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank it was not because I took it so to be but because the Paedobaptists so count it as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew SECT XXXI Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant and the severall sealings of them BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and he teâ—s me that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism Answer Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and I am very willing so to do as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken and do abuse others in this point by reason of their inconsideratenass or superficial consideration of this thing The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion and it is used most by the African Writers Tertullian Augustine c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks Chrysostome Cyril c. Chamier Paustrat Cath tom 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat quod diligenter attendendum Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum qui suo exemplo posteris praiit deinde Augustini definitione c. Whence I inferre that as the term Sacrament so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments some making seven some three most Protestants two onely would be lessened if moderate learned men had the handling of it I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church as 1 Cor. 10 1 2 3 4. 12 13. Eph. 4 5. Mark 16.16 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them cannot be demonstrated They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites as laying on of hands c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture Divines elder and later have framed their definitions according to their own conceits After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato give grace by the â—aâ—e outward use of them Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe used by them all whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme falsly termed Anabaptists proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther No Faith no Baptism Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others who to overthrow the reall presence insisted upon it â—hat Sacraments were but signs for representation and when that doctrin was once broached the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it To answer whom the Lutherans maintain that by baptism or before they are made believers as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Montâ—elgard cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 15 p. 143. shew Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus â—it lavacrum regenerationis teste Paulo sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum Ecclesiae vel in ipso actu baptismi regenerationis quae siâ—e fide esse non potest And to this opinion did many in England warp when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part 3â— Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant Dr. Ward Mr Thomas Bedford which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford notwithstanding the late Synectism or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford Brother you know my mind that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine
of â—he consistency of these two things the truth of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 and the Apostles intimation that the Jewes should be cast away was his scope not that which Mr. B. imagines the Apostle mainly drives at to shew why the Jewes are saved for the Apostle supposeth that they should not be saved and to maintain it answers the objection Whence also it may be perceived that Mr. B. quite perverts the Apostles answer For he makes it to be this 1. That the Apostle doth not say or mean Abrahams seed should not be saved whereas it 's the very occasion of the objection that he determined that a great part or the body or people of the Jewes who were Abrahams seed were then rejected as his words shew Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5 31 10 1 2 3 21. 11.7.15.17.20 c. and the Gentiles taken for Gods people in their stead the searching of which was the great quarrell the Jewes had against Paul so that Mr B. makes Paul not to say that which he did teach and plainly intimated in that very place 2. That he onely sayes that Abrahams carnall seed were saved not because they are his seed but because they are children of the promise which is both contrary to the Apostles suppositions which is that they are not saved and that because they are not children of God nor children of the promise though children of the flesh and impertinent to the removing of the objection concerning the rejection of the Jewes how it could stand with Gods promise For the answer as Mr. B. makes it had no way justified Gods truth but strengthened the objection if it were supposed they were children of the promise whom yet Paul counted for castawayes Nor do the Apostles words say the children of the flesh are saved though not because they are Abrahams seed but that they are not the children of God who were onely children of the flesh not children of the promise nor counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 was made at all as it was Evangelicall As for what Mr. B. alledgeth That the Jewes shall be again called and so all Israel be saved Rom. 11. and therefore the Apostle doth not say or mean that Abrahams seed should not be saved it is inconsequent siâ—h the Apostle might and did suppose the present should not be saved though hereafter the Jewes shall it followes on the contrary he supposed the present Jewes should be rejected because he speaks of the calling and salvation of the Jewes was a thing future yet not till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in in the mean time he saith blindness happened to them in part And what he saith that God hath been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed he neither sheweth where that promise is nor do I know where to find it nor where he promiseth to take them to be a people to him and that he will be to them a God and for what he alledgeth that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed and that God will be mercifull to them how little they make for the visible Church-membership of Gâ—ntile believers infants will be shewed in answering Chap. 21 22 of the first part of his Book And for Gods pronouncing them holy he is fully answered Antipoedob part 1. Sect. 23â— c. It followes in Mr. B. 4 And observe further That Paul here speaks not a word against the priviledge of the infants whose parents deny not God nor violate his Covenant and fall not away If any man should affirm that all the infants of the faithfull so dying are certainly saved there is not a syllable in this text against him For Paul onely pleads that if men fall away and prove unbelievers God will not save them because Ahraham or any other remote progenitor was faithful The covenant never intended this But yet children of those that fall not away or be not broken off for unbelief do lose none of their priviledges but may belong to the visible or invisible Church If any man should deny Christ and yet think to be saved because they are Englishmen or because their progenitors long since were faithfull I should use to them Pauls words here But what is this to those who do not deny Christ and therefore are both Children of the flesh and of the-promise Besides those the Apostle here excludeth were aged unbelievers so that this text hath not any colour either against baptism or their Church membership Answer There is little truth in this passage Paul speaks Rom. 9 6. 7 8 c. against the being in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 of Abrahams and Isaacs naturall seed and therefore by consequence against the Church membership and Baptism of believers children by vertue of that covenant being made to them and he excludes Esau before he was born and therefore other than aged believers and if Esau the son of Isaac no Apostate were out of the covenant and declared so afore he was born then had he died in infancy he had not bin saved and so there is more than a Syllable in this Text against him who should affirm That all the infants of the faithfull so dying are certainly saved for this Text affirms some infants of the most holy believers are not in covenant and if not in covenant not certainly saved but certainly reprobate The children of those who fall not away have no such priviledge that they do certainly belong either to the invisible or visible Church If there may be infant-children of believers who may be children of the flesh and not children of the promise then the promise of saving benefits is not made to any other than the elect for sure it is made to none other of other believers if it be made onely to the elect ones of Abraham and Isaac I go on 4. The promise which is in Christ Yea and Amen is made onely to the Elect for it is not Yea and Amen to any other sith it is not ratified accomplished to any other But the promise of saving benefits is in Christ Yea and Amen for so are as many promises as are in Christ 2 Cor. 1.20 and such is the promise of saving benefits Ergo. 5. Those promises which were made to Christ were made onely to the Elect for whether Christ personall be meant the promises were made to him onely for those whom he represents and they are onely the elect or Christs mysticall body that is his Church they are the elect onely But the promise of saving benefits made to Christ Gal. 3.16 Ergo. 6. The promise which is of the Covenant confirmed unto Christ is onely to the elect But such is the promise of saving benefits Gal 3.17 Ergo. 7. The promise which is of eternall life is made onely to the elect But such is the promise of saving benefits Tit. 1.2 Ergo. 8. To whom the promise of saving benefits is made are Heirs of the Promise But they
are only to the elect for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation Heb. 6.17 But so it is onely to the elect Ergo. 9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature are made onely to the elect But such are the promises of saving benefits 2 Pet. 1.4 Ergo. 10. The promise of that Covenant is made onely to the elect of which Christ is surety for Christs suretiâ—hip engageth him to perform it and he performs it onely to the elect therefore he is surety of the covenant onely for the elect But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety Heb. 7.22 Ergo. 11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood is made onely with the elect for it was shed for them onely But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Matth 26 28. Ergo. 12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken and they continued not in it is made onely to the elect But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.7 8 9. Ergo. 13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made â—s made onely to the elect for God doth this onely to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 10.16 Ergo. 14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator is made onely to the elect for he is mediator for them onely sith he prayes for them onely John 17.9 And he is Mediator of the new covenant that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 12.24 Ergo. 15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant is made onely to the elect for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 13.20 Ergo 16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David is made onely to the elect for no other have them given to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Isa. 55.3 Ergo. 17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made deliverance from all enemies and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear is made onely to the elect for to them onely God performs it But such is the covenant of grace Luke 1.73 74 75. Ergo That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made is made onely to the elect for they onely persevere But such is the new covenant of grace Isa. 54 9 10. Jer. 32 40. Ergo. 19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect then it is the absolute or condiâ—ionall covenant as Mr B. distinguisheth but neither Not the first as Mr B. confesseâ—h nor the conditionall for it is made onely with believers and they are onely the elect I grant it is propounded as Dr Twisse speaks Animad in Corinth Defens pag. 235 or as others say offered or tendered to others but made with the elect Ergo. If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect then with all which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion when he saith Plain Scripture Proof c. pag 316 The new Covenant is conditionall and universall But it is not made withall That covenant which was made with all had Adam for the common head but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people Isai. 49.8 and therefore rhe promise was that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 which Mr B most corruptly interprets Of the whole seed of the woman infants as well as others Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69 but it is true primarily or onely of Christ Heb. 2.14 But Christ is not a common head to all but onely to the elect who are chosen in him Eph. 1.3 4. Ergo I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard pag. 283.286 Doctor Kendall Vindic. part 3. ch 18 pag. 14 15 and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me And he saith in his Examen and Apology that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians in his asserting the conditional sealing and when he talks of the Covenant Christs suretiship c. To which I answer A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism which is but contradictory to Antinomianism I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not but this opinion that the covenant of grace which baptism sealeth is onely to the elect and is not conditionall is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick Answer 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat call it fury or zeal as you please with so much confidence and peremptoriness and so many mistakes against Antinomians Antipaedobaptists and others as he haâ—h don And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he â—aâ—h gotten by his practical Writings and for infant-baptism and the Ministery may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about universâ—ll redemption universall covenant of grace uncertainty of perseverance and salvation the condition of justification which withâ—ut more than a grain of salt will turn to Aâ—minianiâ—m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of seâ—king truth and peace in the Church hath more hindred both For thaâ— whâ—ch he saith That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onely to elect and is nâ—t conditionall is one of the pillars of Antinomianism I have made some search into my books and made use of my memory and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England August 30 1637 this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the â—ovenant of grace on mans part as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith in that Church there is not sufficienâ— bread And in other books they are charged wiâ—h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute so as if by it men were exempted from duty they were justified without faith c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard thâ—s charged with Antinomianism that the covenant of grace is made onely to the elect but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists and the covenant
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-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
same What a powerfull argument is here for a man to venture upon to unchurch all the infants in the world The efficient cause enters not the essence or if it did yet not every less principal inferiour cause such as the Messenger or Minister of our call is If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the Charter of Church membership then you had said something else you say nothing to the purpose Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence nature or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not yet what I was to prove that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts and consequently of infants being included is altâ—red might be and indeed is firmly concluded from thence For as Alsted suppl Chamier de naturae Eccl. ch 2. § 3. The matter of the Church are men called Mat. 20.16 The form is the call it self and that is either simple that is either externâ—l onely or internal onely or conjunct that is external and internal together § 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit the outward in which he calls outwardly by the ministery of the Church And this is the call of the Church which as it is the action of God calling is in God himself but as it is received of the Church is it's form Or as Ames med Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church is calling whence also it receives it's name and definition For the Church is a company of men called 1 Cor. 1.24 with 10.32 And Cameron in his praeiect of the Church in his definition of the Church makes it to be a society of men called by the ministery of the word and saith called and believers are the same in Scripture Mr. B. confes of Faith pag. 284. The Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium If then infants be not called by the word which is the onely way of calling into the Christian visible Church nor believers then they are no part of the visible Church Christian and consequently the Church constitution is altered and the Law of visible church membership of infants if there were such a Law is repealed And this argument is powerfull enough if there were no more to venture upon to unchurch though I like not the expression all the infants of the world that is to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects doth not invalidate the consequence For the consequence is not grounded on this onely that the Magistrate called then and the Minister now then all together now here one and there another but on this the Magistrate did it then by his authority though without perswading one after another but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word teaching and perswading one after another as the word takes and not by any commanding power or outward force or legislative or coercive vertue And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect because if none be called but those that receive the word and none be members of the Church but the called and infants be uncapable thereof they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into as his own words shew as if I had argued onely from the different persons and their different office and not also from the different way manner or sort of call whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call and so I might answer them all negatively and graâ—t what he would have me and yet my proof stands good And for what he saith that the â—fficient cause enters not the essence I find to the contrary in Keckerm syst log l. 1. par 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents the notion of distinction or the difference is taken from the subject efficient end and object Yet this if true were nothing against me who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church no nor of the existence though the Apostles woâ—ds Rom. 10.14 speak near to it But this is that which I hold no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian but who is called by the outward preaching of the word who ever be the Messenger or Minister of the call and sith infants are not so called they are not members of the visible Church Christian. Mr. B. adds 2. I utterly deny that there is any more truth in the Antecedent then in the consequent God hath not altered the nature of the call in any substantial point but in meer circumstances Answ. What Mr. B. means by the nature of the call and what points he makes in the call substantial what near circumstances is not easie to tell but that God hath so altered the Jewish Châ—rch call as to exclude infants from the Christian visible Church is so apparent that I know not how to conceive of the denial of it but as a fruit of oppositeness without reason For all the way that John Baptist Christ the Apostles and other teachers took and appointed to be taken for gathering the Christian visible Church was by preaching the Gospel to all that would hear it to make them disciples or believers and so by baptism to joyn them to the Church But that the Jewish Church call was different is apparent in that there were no such teachers sent out to unite them but that by the authority of the Magistrates whether houshold or national they were imbodied Rightly saith Mr. Hudson vindic ch 4. sect 5. pag. 94. Gods method of conveying Church-priviledges used in the national Church of the Jews being in populo Israelitico must needs differ from the method in populo Catholico And the same is true of Gods call But what need we any other to shew the proper call of the Christian Church visible then Mr. B. himself in his Saints Everlasting rest part 2. ch 6. sect 1. Edit 1. pag. 223 224. he is so ample and his words so plain that I think if there were no more to shew his perverse stiffness in this thing it were enough I will transcribe some passages Consider in what way Christ spreads his Gospel to bring men in from the world into his Church from Paganism Turcism or Judaism to Christianity he never gave the sword any such Commission he never levied an army to advance his dominion nor sent forth his followers as so many Commanders to subdue the Nations to him by force and spare none that will not become Christians He will have none but those that voluntarily list themselves under him He sent out Ministers and not Magistrates or Commanders to
bring in the world Can he say this of the Jewish Church and their call But let 's view his wincings against the plain truth and in some sort against his own light though perhaps forgotten when he wrote this later book It is saith Mr. B. said it was then by Magistrates and now by Ministers I answer 1. What was by Magistrates the first call or all after For the first I know not which or when it was let him that can tell see that be prove it I finde when Circumcision was first instituted in Abraham's family But nevâ—r when their Church-membership begun shall I dare to think that either Abraham or his family were no Church-members till they were circumcised Rom. 4. would confute me Answ. Mr. B. saith he answers but indeed puts questions to me to answer and those impertinent For though I could not tell him which was the first call nor when the church-membership of Abrahams family begah yet it might be true and proved that the call of the Jewish Church was by the magistrate But yet for clearing of the truth I shall make some answer 1. That I find God calling Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees Gen. 12.1 Acts 7.3 Isa. 41.2 and sundry times I find Abraham sacrificing to God and God covenanting with him Nor would I deny Abraham Sarah and those of his family who worshipped the true God to have been visible church members before circumcision 2. But yet I finde not the whole family of Abraham men women and children made a visible Church by any act or riâ—e which might be termed a Churâ—h-call whereby they were separated from all oâ—her people and united in a little nation unto God till the appointment of circumcision by God and the performing of it by Abrahams authority Now if Mr. B. could not tell which and when the Jewish Church call was or the Jews childrens church-membership began I think he is very unreasonable to require of me to shew a repeal of a thing which hee findes not when it began But there is more of this wilde posing scâ—ibling to be answered 2. Saith he suppose it were true that Abrahams family began then to be a Church which will never be proved yet did not God call them to Circumcision immediately What is this to a ministerial call Answ. 1. It will never be proved that any whole family infants servants c. were joyned in a little national Church as the Jewish before that time there being no such covenant and token of it till then 2. God did immediately make his covenant with Abraham then and appoint circumcision But the call of the Church was medlate the revealing of the covenant and the administring the token of it whereby they were separated to be a people to God being done by Abraham himself as the minister of this call Yet we have more questions to answer 3. Are you sure that which Abraham did in it was as a Magistrate and not as a Prophet nor Priest nor Master of family prove that if you can Answ. It is easie to prove that what Abraham did was done not as a Prophet nor Priest for then it should have been the work of Prophets and of Priests to have circumcised but as the Master of the family or parent and consequently as the Magistrate of that house For I count a parent or master of a Family to be a Magistrate in a little compass Yet more 4. What was it that Abraham did He circumcised them when God had commanded And was circumcising the call then the infants in the Wilderness nor the whole camp almost had no Church call And then the women had never any Church call Answ. Circumcising was part of the call the declaration of God concerning Abrahams posterity and his other providences separating the Israelites in the Wilderness and with them the women as bringing them out of Aegypt bringing them into Covenant giving them Laws by Moses c. which reached to women and males uncircumcised were also a part of the Church call Yet again What was it then that Abraham did more then now may be done If you say he compelled them to be circumcised by violence without their consent I deny it as a forgery And if he had done so by those at age it had been no making them Church-members for their consent is absolutely necessary therto If you say Abraham by his interest and authority perswasion did win all at age in his family to consent dare you say that every Master of a family and Magistrate ought not to do so now So that I cannot finde any more that Abraham did in this call then may now be done Answ. I do not think Abraham did compel them by violence to be circumcised I think it could hardly have been so done nor do I think Abraham did it as preachers do now by reasons and proofs of theiâ— duty perswading them to it and leaving it free to them to consent or not perhaps the time was too little to do it in and not unlikely Ishmael would have then refused being a scoffer and then thirteen years old But he did it by his command authority and interest which if Magistrates and Masters of Families do use with perswasion to win persons to consent to the Gospel they do what is commendable and in some cases their duty And if they win any so they make them visible church-members by their preaching to them not meerly by Authority as Abraham who I think was bound to have circumcised by force if any had not yeilded to it or else to have cut him off by that law which is Gen. 17.14 And I hardly think Mr. B. will yield a Magistrate or Master of a family to do what Abrahâ—m did to administer as they call it the initial seal whether it be circumcision or baptism Yet were his conclusion yielded him neither it nor any thing he hath sâ—id doth at all overthrow my position which was that the Christian Church call is by preaching the Jewish by the Magâ—strates authority and so different Mr. B. goes on thus And then for Moses what more did he did he make them members without their consent No he sets before them life and deaâ—h blessing and cursing and bids them chuse which they would Deut. 28 29 30 chapters Doth he circumcise them No not his own Son Nor the infants forty years nor the women at all Doth he command them to obey the commands of God And should not every King and Magistrate do the like Dâ—th he perswade them why you know he was a Prophet and if he had not yet sure he must do it as a King and as a servant of God Where then lies this peculiar call by the Magistrate I think by that time we have searchâ— this to the quick we shall finde the Magistracy less beholding to Mr. T. then was imagined No wonder that he told the people in his puâ—pit that it was Doctrine of a dangerous consequence
him Matth. 26.32 Mark 16.7 the disciples shutâ—inâ— the doors and assembling at evening for fear of the Jews Joh. 20.19 do shew that most of â—he disciples were Galileans few of Jerusalem specially when all the disciples forsook Christ and fled Matth. 26.56 the shepheard being smitten and the sheep scattered v. 31. Hâ—wever the enumeration being of disciples and the women being reckoned with them and not their children nor the actions of prayer c. such as are to bee ascribed â—o infants it is evident that infants were not then countted among the disciples and consequenâ—ly not counted for visible members of the Christian Church Acts 2.1 They are said to be all with one accord in one place The Assembly ubi suprà alledgeth reasons why they all should be meant of the Apostles onely but not cogent For 1. the narration doth not any more limit the words Act. 2.1 by Acts 1.26 then by v. 15. 2. not onely the Apostles but oâ—hers were filled with the holy Ghost women as well as men v. 17. Acts 4.31 6.5 3. though they were Galileâ—ns that spake v. 7. yet it proves not the all v. 1. to be Galileans 4. the mention is of the Apostles v. 14 37 42. not to shew that it was a meeting of the Apostâ—es onely but because they were the leaders and chief actors in that Church And that the meeting was of the whole Church at Jerusalem then is proved from v. 41. thâ—s The meeting was of them to whom the three thousand souls were added But they were added to the Church v. 47. not onely to the Apostles or teachers For then the sense should be that that 3000 should be added to the teachers and so many more teachers added whereas they are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine v. 42. by their profession of it the Apostles teaching anâ— not theâ— And hence I gather that not one infant was reckoned to the Church because the all v. 1. are said to bee together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord or one minde and consent which is not to be said of infants From Acts 2.41 I further argue The Church did then consist of such persons onely as were of like sort with those who were added to it which must be granted except it be said the added and those who were added were of different sorts But of those who were added there was no one infant This is proved from the words v. 42 43. that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and fear came upon every soul v. 41. they gladly received the word which cannot be said of infants therefore no infant was reckoned then aâ— a part or member of the visible Church Christian. Again v. â—4 the whole Church is meant by all that believed who are said to be together to have all thingsâ—common sold and imparted their possessions continued with one accord in the temple brake bread from house to house eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart praised God had â—avour with all the people v. 45 46 47. which cannot be said of infants therefore no infants were then reckoned as parts or members of the Christian visible Church Again Acts 4.4 it is said many of them which heard the word believed and the number of the men was about five thousand That this is an enumeration of the whole Church then at Jerusalem is more probable theâ— that it is an enumeration onely of the newly added however the addition being of the same sort of persons with those to whom they were added and no one infant reckoned to the Church but all men that heard the word and believed it is clear that in the number of the christians or disciples infants were not reckoned and consequently no visible church members then V. 23 24. Peter and John are said to go to their own company and to report to them the speech of the chief Priests and Elders and then upon hearing they lift vp their voice with one accord to God v. 31. to pray to be assembled together to be filled with the holy Ghost to speak the word God with boldness and the Church is called v. â—2 the multitude of them who believed to be of one heart and one soul. All which shew that the Church consisted of a company of praying people of a multitude of believers which is not to be said of infants therefore they were no visible church members then Acts 5.11 it is said And great fear came upon all the Church and upon as many as heard these things Here the whole church is mentioned as contradistinguished frâ—m the many that heard these things But no one infant was a member of the Church sith none was capable of the great fear that came upon all the Church from the notice of Ananias and Saphira's death therefore they were not then church-members V. 13 14. They who were magnified by the people who were joyned to the Lord who were of the same sort with believers who were the more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women were not infants But such were the Church then therefore it did not consist of infants then Acts 6.1 The Church is expressed by the number of Disciples by the multitude of Disciples v. 2. the whole multitude v. 5. the number of the Disciples obedient to the faith v. 7. But none of these were infants as their conventing the speeches to them and other acts shew therefore infants then were not reckoned Christian visible church-members Acts 8.1 The Church at Jerusalem are said to be all scattered abroad except the Apostles v. 3. to consist of men and women haled to prison which is not to be conceived of infants therefore they were not then reckoned as visible church members Acts 15.22 The whole Church is said to send chosen men of their own company But this doth not agree to infants therefore infants were not reckoned as part of the whole Church 1 Cor. 14.23 The whole Church is supposed to come togeter into one place But this is not to be said of infants they were no part of the company that met they were not capable of the end and actions of the meeting therefore they were no part of the whole Church The same may be said of all other like places 4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible to whom the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church did not agree But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to infants Ergo. The major is of it self evident as in like manner this is a plain truth that they are no souldiers to whom what is said of the whole Army doth not agree The minor is proved from many places of Scripture Matth. 16.18 Christ saith he will build his Church on this Rock this is meant of the whole Church and the building is meant of building by preaching Ephes. 2.20 4.11 12.
order of Nature is inverted To all these arguments against infants visible Christian-Churchmembership this one may be added That there is neither example rule nor hint in all the New Testament of their admission into the Church or ordering in it or care of the Elders and Officers of the Church for them as members nor any other sign that Christ would have them reckoned as visible members in the Christian Church which is a strong presumption against it I know none that hath disputed for it so much as Mr. B. I will therefore go on to examine what he saith SECT LIII Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he asserts whereby the point is stated THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church now Printed in his book of Baptism ch 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be and he denying it was that of circumcision urged him often to tell me what it was which he would not which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been After in my Praecursor I again told him I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews no universal law or ordinance for it To which what elusory reply he made is shewed in the second Part oâ— this Review sect 2. pag 8 9. Which moved me being then upon the examining of his 4th and 5th ch from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him Sir Not finding yet that Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is Yours as is meet April 3. 1655. John Tombes The next morning I received from him this Letter directed to me Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sence of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinance or Law of God that infants should be Churchmembers is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that infants were Churchmembers as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these and not directly of a precept Secondly the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit and this is the work of a law or precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these For you cannot imagine that any infant had the blessing without a grant or promise that 's impossible nor that any parents lay under a duty without an obliging law for that 's as impossible Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolâ—ed in both these and so yeeld that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but Whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said then is said yet I shall think it needless till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you proved to be reversed Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts while you confess in general that such a promise and preeept there is by vertue of which infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church for Christs Church it was even his univeâ—sal visible Church Still remember that I take the word law not strictly for a precept onely but largely as comprehending â—oth promise and precept and I have already shewed you both and so have others So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness I am willing to second yoâ— in viz. that at the age yoâ— desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ and their resolution to be 〈◊〉 But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here then to spend my time to prove that no infants of believers are within Christs visible Church that is are no infant Disciples infant Christians infant Churchmembers I know no glory it will bring to Christ nor comfort to man nor see I now any appearance of truth in it I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy and that I was dedicated so soon to God and not left wholly in the Kingdome and power of the Devil They that despise this mercy or account it none or not worth the accepting may go without it and take that which they get by their ingratitude And I once hoped that much less then such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers or at least the preventing of others Apostacy which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you then again to write against rebaptizing or for Infant-baptism Sir I remain your imperfect brother knowing but in part yet loving the truth Rich. Baxter Being the same day to return home yet loth to be put off thus I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter this also to him Sir I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Church members that is of the Congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely
what regard is the new frame betterâ—d by casting out infants which were in the old Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onely believers the Church is more spiritual Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save onely that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full exâ—ress faith Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult it being hard to determine what Articlâ—s were necessary to salvation which is a question so hard that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onely say that I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch 27. I finde idolaters blasphemers and some others adjudged to death yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws that idolaters and such great sinners were cast out of the Church but were members of it The later is answered before often enough Mr. B. tels me You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well that I expected I should have questions enow though I desired onely a few Texts it s his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted and serve to weary the reader and respondent and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist though without cause But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words when I desired onely a line or two about his texts and how ill he deals with me and the reader who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Church-membership the denial of which he makes so hainous and from which he argues so much I leave to the considerable Reader to judge But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me after all my work in answering him I must be corrected ere I be dismissed SECT LXIII Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions and Conclusion of his Letter are answered ANd now saith he I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Q. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that infants were visible Churchmembers not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae though I pitty him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not or will not understand presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones But to his question I answer negatively and return it back to him is it not an undertaking palpably absurd to make visible Churchmembership to be a right to a benefit by Gods promise as the sole efficient and anothers faith as the condition But saith he either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant making or not if you do what a saying is it that infants were made Churchmembers not by Covenant but by a Covenant making not by a Law but by a Law making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Churchmembership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to bee devoted to God Which ever of these wayes you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent juâ—ge Answ. That I need chuse none of the wayes hee mentions nor change my opinion is amply shewed Sect. 55. this high charge would have been leâ—t out had he more sobriety and humility I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible and go on Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transâ—unt fact is that without law or Covenant makes Churchmembers I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now ner ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of dâ—stempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Answ Ne saevi magne sacerdos The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts but the plain word of God Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.37 from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant as the institution of Christ and practise of the Apostles which they follow without Schism endeavouring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God If any Schism have been a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth as if it were a damnable errour accursed of God and his followers violent opposition of which Bewdley hath had sad experience of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith and breaking bread together though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism pag. 342. that it should be so And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others
by Baptism to them as the best preservative against it For my part I think Mr. Bs. and other Ministers maintaining infant Baptism do give most advantage and encouragement to them both to inveigh against them as men that will not yeeld to truth but teach a manifest errour and therefore not to be heard and then Mr. Saltmarsh and others delusions about water baptism as now ceased living in the spirit expectation of it no true Ministry now without the spirit as the Apostles had and such like conceits driving them off from the Churches of the baptized they are caught by those emissaries from Rome and other agents of Satan with that Divelish delusion God justly suffering Satan to delude them with lies because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved 2 Thes. 2.10 So that I have as much cause to think quakerism the fruit of Mr. Bs. ways as of mine own Nor will it be any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when such a one as Mr. B. shall continue to load me with false accusations with which I have many wayes shewed my self not chargeable and not onely he but also Mr. Robert Baillee in his Dissuasives Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena's and others shall in English and Latine heap so many untruths on godly persons because dissenters while they lived to shew the falsity of them Qu 6. Have you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred of the perverting of so many souls opening them such a gap to schism contempt of the Ministry and Apostacy destroying a hopefull reformation that cost so dear or weakening our hands in the work and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes and list themselves among you as the hopefull party to befriend their cause hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane and setling them again on their drâ—gs when many once began to shake O what a Church might we have had and were likely to have had had it not been for the Separatists and you And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these Have these things toucht your heart Answ. How far these things have toucht my heart I must give an account to God my Judge and not to Mr. B. who with his fraternity I perceive would pass a heavy doom on mee and scarce award me a place in earth or heaven And no marvel if I were so pernicious an instrument as he describes me But may I not require Mr. B. to shew me by what actions I have done any of these things Is Mr. B. allowed to accuse in generals and not to instance in particulars may he without control accuse and not prove May he have liberty as in a Chancery bill hath been wont to put in all he can imagine whether true or false Is not this the manner of quakers and scolds Are my answers often made of no avail to clear my self but that Mr B. will still be imputing that to me which my writings and courses do absolve me from No marvel Dr. Owen said of him Appendix to his Vindic Evang. pag. 5. A man that doth not know him as I do would by his writings take him to be immitis immisericors a very Achilles that will not pardon a man in his grave but will take him up and cut him in a thousand pieces I tell Mr. B. plainly it is not my doctrine but Mr. Bs. which perverts souls I mean his doctrine of Baptism and Churchmembership besides his other errours that neither my doctrine nor practise open a gap to Schism but tend to the contrary unity of Baptism being one of the bonds of Christians Ephes. 4.4 the restoring of which is the regular way to union Mr. B. by his violent opposing it and the assertors of it doth really open a gap to Schism I open no gap to contempt of the Ministry but they themselves do it by opposing truth and other wayes Apostacy from Christ or godliness is no fruit of my doing but is rather caused by those that urge persons to renounce the right Baptism and Communion of the baptised of which I fear Mr. B. is guilty A right reformation according to Gods word cannot be while infant Baptism continues in seeking to destroy it I promote reformation Mr. B. by maintaining it destroyes reformation and by proposals shews his inclination to persecution which if I hinder I rejoyce I weaken not Mr. Bs. hands in preaching the Gospel but strengthen them if I enervate his errour I am glad he hath most unbrotherlike endeavoured to weaken my hands and to stop my mouth I fill not adversaries mouths with scorn of him but he hath thrown as much dirt as hee could on me in his writings I entice not Jesuites and Friers and if they creep in among those of our judgement is it any more then Jude v. 4. speaks of in his time Can Mr. B. say they are not among his party I harden no Papists but shew their bottome errour nor prophane persons but take the right way to undeceive them they that maintain their infant Baptism settle them on their dregs I mean their carnal presumption by which they take themselves to bee Christians without knowledge of Christ. The Church that was likely to have been Mr. Bs. way may be discerned by the Elders by the Scottish Church Mr. Bs. Church at Kederminster the associated Ministers in Wocestershire and their Churches Confusion is too great for want of restoring Christs order more would be if Mr. Bs. way were imposed and no small oppression on tender consciences and dissenting brethren I may say oh what a Church might wee have had if it had not been for Mr. B. and other such violent Paedobaptists as he is opposing Christs way Qu. 7. Is a transeunt fact making infants Churchmembers without Law promise or Covenant a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things and run such hazards as you have done or is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience durst make all this havock and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence When you should prove to us the revocation of infants Churchmembership to tell us that they â—ad it onely by a transeunt fact Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on Sir my conscience witnesseth that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you but some compassion on you do not scorn it and more on your poor followers and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled Answ. I venture on no such horrid things nor run such hazards as Mr. B. imagines nor is the transeunt fact that I build on but Christs institution Matth. 28.19 though that transeunt fact I assigne is sufficient
for the purpose I alledge it and I cross interrogate Mr. B. Is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience should make such foul work as he hath done by his writings upon such a pâ—lpably unreasonable pretence as a Law of infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed no where extant and a mediate Discipleship hatch't in his brain My reproach is a small matter did it not tend to darken the truth I should neglect it nor should I have answered these questions so fully had not these things been imparâ—ed to the Preacher and others at Bewdley ere they came to my hands Though my reproach were not finis operantis yet must it needs be finis operis I thank Mr. B. for his compassion on me and my followers I have the like on him and his followers I do not scorn his compassion but pitty his prejudice and pertinacy If I have injured and troubled the Church my Antagonists have compelled me the Lord knowes I had not a resolution to print till the Assembly neglected the matter and determined against me and the truth unheard That I have injured the Church by printing I believe not it is certain Mr. B. hath extreamly injured me and the truth and troubled the Church of God by printing his Book of Baptism I should not have peace in my conscience did I not endeavour to detect his aâ—d other Paedobaptists fallacies which I crave liberty to do and shall easily pass by personal reproaches Qu. 8. Can you prove that ever there was one age or Church particular on earth since Adam till about 200. years ago that the Anabaptists rose wherein infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church If you can do it Let 's hear your proof Answ. I can and for proof look back to Sect. 50 51 52 57. besides Constantin Augustin mentioned by Mr. B. p 329. Nazianzen Hierom c. unbaptized though of Christian parents till adult Qu. 9. Can you bring us proof of any one infant of true Church-members that was not rightfully a Churchmember himself from the creation till Christs dayes or from the creation till this day except the Anabaptists who reject the benefit whose case as I said before I will not presume to determine Answ. I can for proof look back to Sect. 50 51 52 57. Qu. 10. Seing that infants have been de facto Churchmembers from the creation to this day as far as any records can lead us is it likely that the Lord and head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects as in regard of age he disallowed and suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now Or is it a reasonable modest and lawful undertaking to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church as to the age of the subjects And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in heaven lived in till the other day as a few Anabaptists with vile and sinful means and miserable success did attempt an alteration Answ. This question ariseth from these suppositions 1. that infants have been de facto Churchmembers from the creation to this day 2. That all the Saints in heaven lived in a Church that had infants visible Churchmembers till less then 200. years ago 3. That the Anabaptists in Germany in less then 200. years attempted the alteration first of of leaving infants out of the visible Church 4. That they did it with vile and sinful meanes and miserable success The first of these is not true as is shewed in the fore-going Sections chiefly those in which the 8th question of this Letter of Mr. B. is answered the second is shewed to be false Sect. 52. wherein it is proved the Apostles lived in a Church that had not infants The third is false for both Christ altered it and when the corruption of infant Baptism had overspread the Western Churches many besides the late Anabaptists as Petrus de Bruis and many other Saints in heaven did alter it The fourth is in part false For I think the Anabaptists so called did not alter infant visible Churchmembership with vile and sinful means but some of them not all did by vile and sinful means seek to set up a temporal dominion of the Saints as I fear some now called Quinto-monarchians do which is not to be imputed to all that are of the same way in point of discipline and ordinances and that though this thing of erecting a temporal dominion had miserable success yet the restoring of Baptism hath had success as other reformations as of the Waldenses Hussites Non-conformists and others who though by clamours of Preachers and violence of Princes they have been for a time suppressed yet a remnant have been preserved who have in time revived and we hope notwithstanding all the clamours accusations and practises used to corrupt suppress them will spread grow up through the blesing of God And to Mr. Bs. questions I answer my aim is not to erect a new framed Church to God but to reduce it to the frame Christ and his Apostles left it in though it were after some ages altered by the corruption of infant Baptism which had its original from the gross errour that by it Gods grace was given and otherwise the infants should perish And though in that Church who were for infant Baptism many were Saints now in heaven yet it is not safe to continue that errour any more then to continue the errour of infant Communion now by Papists and Protestants rejected though it were many hundreds of yeares practised in the same Churches And sure I wonder if he condemn mee for seeking reformation of infant Baptism how Mr. B. could justifie himself for not living quietly in the Church of England as it was under the Prelates though there were among them in that Church Saints now living in heaven but seeking the reformation of discipline and ceremonies of humane invention though greater troubles followed thereon then I think hath followed this reformation I endeavour and then I hope ever will Surely if the way I take and propound and prosecute were followed the reformation would be easie and safe and that it is not followed will be laid to the charge of Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists as their sin nor can all his or their wit bee able to cleer them from it nor from the guilt of breaking their solemn Covenant to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word Hee concludes Sir pardon the weakness and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother though not as is meet Rich. Baxter May 14. 1655. Answ. I pray the Lord to pardon Mr. Bs. violent and clamourouâ— though I hope not wilful opposing of the truth and I love him not the worse for his plain dealing yet cannot
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
Book of Baptism in this Review Part. 1. Sect. 6 7 8 9. I think it not needful as yet to make reply to the exceptions against my answers and therefore go on to answer Mr. Bs. 12th Chapt. which begins thus My 7th Arg. shall be drawn from Matth. 23.37 38 39. From whence I argue thus If Christ were so tender over Jerusalem that he would have gathered them as a Hen gathereth her Chickens then surely he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church or repealed the merciful gift and ordinance of their Churchmembership But Christ was so tender of them that he would have so gathered Jerusalem c. Therefore sure hee would not have unchurched their infants The antecedent is the words of the Lord Jesus The reason and strength of the consequence lieth here 1. It is not some particular Jews that Christ would have gathered to himself and so into his Church as accomplished with higher priviledges then before but it was Jerusalem whole Jerusalem which is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish Nation now if Jerusalem were gathered then infants must needs be gathered I know nothing of any moment that can be said against this but leave it to any tender conscience to judge whether it be likely that Christ should have unchurched all their infants when he would have gathered to himself the whole nation or whole Jerusalem If that contemptible answer should here bee again returned that Christ would have gathered them onely into the invisible Church I have answered it before they that are visibly or apparently gathered into the invisible Church are gathered also thereby into the visible And if all Jerusalem had been gathered it had been doubtless a visible gathering O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted truths as I see in these words of the Lord Jesus to convince me that hee would have gathered all Jerusalem into his visible Church and consâ—quently not have unchurched all their infants I should tremble to think of resisting so plain testimonies of God If Christs own words will not serve I know not what will If any say that by Jerusalem is meant onely the aged of Jerusalem I answer It is vain to call for Scripture if they dare contradict it at pleasure or so make it speak onely what they list It is not fully a nation or City without the infants Besides Jerusalem had inchurched infants when Christ so spake therefore how could his words be otherwise understood by them unless hee had excepted infants 2. Yet further Christ doth not in vain use the similitude of a Hen gathering her Chickens The Hen gathereth the youngest most tenderly Yea how long will she sit the very Egs Now who dare expound thiâ— thus As a Hen gathereth her young ones under her wings so I would have gathered the aged of you but none of your young ones visibly 3. And doth not their leaving of their house desolate mean the Temple and so the unchurching them till they say Blessed iâ— hee that commeth in the Name of the Lord and â—heâ— Jerusalem and therefore infants shall bee inchurched again So CHRIST JESUS himself hath made me believe that he would have gathered all Jerusalem but unchurched none of them Answ. It is not CHRIST JESUS but Mr. Bs. own shallâ—wness or prejudice that makes him believe that here is aâ—y thing for infants visible Churchmembership That Jerusalem is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish nation is more then I finde But that by Jerusalem and her children are not meant infants is apparent from the text 1. They are meant by Jerusalem who killed and stoned them that were sent but they were not infants Ergo. 2. Becauâ—e the way whereby Christ would have gathered Jerusalem was by preaching the Gospel to them as is manifest 1. in that hee used no other way 2. This was the way which he often attempted which is implied in the phrase how often would I 3. This is the way they refused implied in the phrase and ye would not that is yee would not obey my admonitions of repentance nor believe the Gospel and so Piscator annal loci saepissimè benignissimè à me admoniti non tamen obtemporare voluistis 4. From vers 34.35 where the way by which hee would have gathered them seems to bee by sending Prophets and Wise men and Scribes or Apostles Luk. 11.49 to them which were not sent to infants How oft would I have gâ—thered That is say some by the external ministery of the Prophets sent unto thee vers 34 35. Trapâ— on Matth. 23.37 5. The often attempt of gathering here is the same with the visitation or over sight Luke 19.44 as the agreement of the expressions and matter in both places compared eâ—idently shews now that was by teaching Luke 1.78 79. And thus the New Annot. Of thy visitation as if he had said in thy visitation in which God manifested himself in my person offering thee mercy 6. Thus Protestant Divines often expound it answering Arminians and others inferring hence resistability of converting grace by mans freeâ—will as Diodati in his annot on Matth. 23.37 expresseth their minde Wee must of necessity understand this to bee meant of the dispensation of outward means by the word exhortations commandments c. Now it cannot be said that Christ would have this way gathered the infants of Jerusalem for hee had said he often by his own and Prophets and Apostles preaching would or attempted to do it But this he would nor nor attempted to do to infants Ergo they are not meant under the term Jerusalem 3. This is proved also from the end of his gathering which was that they might bee his Disciples but hee never would or did gather any infants to him as his Disciples Ergo. 4. It is proved also thus Those onely are meant by Jerusalem whom Christ would have gathered but they would not But this cannot be said of infants that they would not there was no nilling of Conversion in them Ergo. 5. They are meaâ—t by Jerusalem who are meant by the City Luk. 19.41 and there they are meant who v. 42. might have known in that their day the things belonging to their peace but then they were hid from their eyes Who knew not the time of their visitation v. 44. But this is not meant of infants Ergo. In answer therefore to Mr. Bs. argument altering the termes put out unchurch which my doctrine doth not assert into repeal the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership or leave out of his visible Church I deny the consequence of his major and deny that which he alledgeth for proof of it that by Jerusalem is meanâ— all the people of Jerusalem even the infants And to his wish I return a wish O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted truâ—hs as I see in these words to convince me that Christ means noâ— infants by those he would have gathered unto
over whom the rule is but the rule it self 4. It is so to be understood where it is mentioned as I conceive in the sense meant Revel â—1 15 as namely 1 Cor. 15.24 2 Tim. 4.1 and other places 5. Thus Diodati in his Annot. on Revel 11.15 The Kingdomes that is to say Now God reigneth with his son and that absolutely having subdued all his enemies 1 Cor. 15.24 that I omit others 6. This sense is the more confirmed if it be read as some copies have it the Kingdome of this world is become On the other side Mr. Bs. interpretation seems to me either not sense or not true For then it should be thus All the Kingdomes of the world that is every person in the world should be Christs Church that is a society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c. as he defines the Church of Baptism pag. 82. Now can this be good sense to be all the world the Kingdomes of the world and to be called or separated from or out of the world Can all the world be separated from the world And there is no truth in this interpretation sith it never was nor shall be that the kingdomes of the world that is every person old and young in all the kingdomes of the world shall become Christs Church For then Christ should have no enemies to remove out of his Kingdome contrary to the Parable Matth. 13.30 expounded v. 38.39 40 41 42. Now if this be the sense then it makes nothing for infants visible Churchmembership nor by kingdomes is all the members of a kingdome meant and so infants but both the consequence of Mr. Bs. major is justly denied and the inference from the consequent of it For if it be meant of Christs rule as the texts shew though it connote the persons over whom the rule is yet they are not thereby proved Churchmembers for in the sense there meant the rule or reign is over enemies as well as subjects Yea if the reign were over subjects and infants comprehended yet sith the reign over them is onely invisible this cannot prove infants visible Churchmembers Nor are Mr. Bs. reasons of any force to prove that Revel 11.15 by the kingdome of Christ must be meant the Church For it is not true that the constant phrase of Scripture calls Christs Kingdome his Church and Conversim For though I deny not that â—he Church is termed the kingdome of Christ yet I deny this is the constant phrase of Scripture to call the kingdome of Christ the Church much less Conversim â—he places alledged before with many more do evince the contrary yea there appear to me but few places wherein the Church is termed the kingdome of Christ. I am not yet fully resolved that it is any where so meant except in that Matth. 13.41 though I deny not the fitness of the expression Nor doth his reason hold that here it cannot be meant of Christs Kingdome in the largest sense as he over-ruleth common sociâ—ties and things For though it be true that in some sort so the Kingdomes of the world were ever his that is he did always so order them that they passively did his will yet it is certain that in the reign of Antichrist the kingdomes of the world that is the rule which was exercised was not actively for God or Christ but as it is expresly said Revel 13.4 â—hey worshipped the Dragon who gave power to the beast blasphemed God made war with the saints overcame them the beast had power over all kindreds and tongues and nations so that all that dwelt on the earth should worship him whose names were not written in the Lambs book of life and so they gave their Kingdome to the beast Revel 17.12 13 14 17. though they did Gods will But after the Lamb overcame them v. 14. and the Kingdomes of the world were his when the Kings did bate the whore and make her desâ—lite c. So that this may well be expounded thus the Kingdomes of the world that is the rule which the Kings of the world have exercised for the Whore shall be so changed that whether out of revenge of the mischiefs the Whore hath done them or out of love to Christ they shall hate her and execute Christs doom upon her which was not always done And it seems a piece of inconstancy in Mr. B. who would not have the kingdomes of the world taken for a part in the forepart of this chapter and yet denies it to be taken in the largest sense in the later part And how the infant Churchmembership of Christians can be gathered from the terme Kingdomes of the world becomming Christs more then any others I see not But I proceed 2. Suppose it were granted that by the Kingdomes of Christ were meant men and the Church of Christ Revel 11.15 yet sure it is far more likely that by the Kingdome of Christ should be meant the invisible then the visible Church For the invisible Church either solely or chiefly is called the kingdome of Christ and he is stiled the King of Saints Rev. 15.3 and Mr. B. saith here Christ is King and Saviour of the same society But in this sense I should grant the conclusion that infants must be members of Christs Kingdome And sureâ—y the visible Church-members who are not true believers have not Christ to rule over them but are enemies to Christ and Satans subjects and therefore not truly but putatively onely in Christs kingdome nor they any part of it They are not children of the kingdome Matth. 13.38 3. But were it granted that Revel 11.15 is meant the visible Church yet that therefore infants must bee a part of it because they are a part of a Kingdome follows not for Mr. B. saith I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdome and Jerusalem c. is taken for a part Which is enough to shew that the argument is not good which he useth For it must rest on this proposition where Jerusalem is mentioned there all Jerusalem is meant where Kingdomes are meaâ—t whole Kingdomes are meant and therefore infants which propositions are coâ—tradicted by Mr. B. himself and therefore it the whole controversie were referred to these two texts Matth. 23.37 Rev. 11.15 to decide Mr. Bs. cause would be lost for want of proof even from his own confession Nor doth Mr. B. produce any thing to prove that by Kingdoms Revel 11.15 is meant the whole oâ— a Kingdome even the infants but onely prattles that which me thinks a learned man should be aâ—â—amed of For there is no colour of reason to charge them who expound Kingdom by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part with making their own Creed without Scripture taking words alwayes in an improper sense making humane language useless putting by any Scripture such as are produced for Christs Godhead when he himself saith it is sometimes in Scripture so taken and gives
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
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
spirit now the new Covenant promises righteousness forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ with a promise of the spirit But these promises belong not to the Church as it is visible but as it contains the elect of which sort infants may be though they be not visible Churchmembers there 's not a word of promise that the visible Church shall consist of a whole nation of all sorts of people in a nation infants and elder much less shall consist of more sorts of people then were in the Jewish Church but of more ample mercies spiritual to the elect who were all of the invisible Church though not of the visible and among them infants abortives stil born chiâ—dren which could not be of the visible and therefore to speak truth parents have more comfort by this Covenant both for themselves and children in that it assures more ample grace and that to more then visible members under the New Testament The same answer is to be given to Heb. 7.22 though â—he word be not as Mr. B. here reads it author but surety The next text speaks of the abounding of grace by Christ beyond the evil of sin by Adams transgression nothing at all of the enlargement of the visible Church since Christs comming in respect of the sorts of members over that which the visible Church Jewish had Yea such a position as it hath not the least footing in the text so would it not stand with Mr. Bs. and other Paedobapâ—ists doctrine that the visible churchmembership is a priviledge of believers children but in respect of extent of persons it was better with the visible Church then sith it comprehended servaâ—ts and the bought children of strangers And for the last text to imagine that the love of Christ is every whit the less if infants be not visible churchmembers is such a conceit as I judge a meer dotage But there is more of it in that which follows Further saith Mr. B. I might prove it out of Ephes. 2.12 They that are out of the Church are said to be strangers to the Covenant and without hope and without God in the world in comparison with those within the Church O how little then do they apprehend that height and depth c. or know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge who think that Christ will unchurch all the infants of believers now that took them in so tenderly in the time of Moses How insensible do they appear to be of the glorious riches of the Gospel and the free abundant grace of Christ who have such unworthy thoughts of him as if he would put all our children out of his Church How little know they the difference between Christ and Moses that think they might then be churchmembers and not now And yet oh the blindness these men do this under pretence of magnifying the sperituality of the Gospel priviledges As if to he a member of Christs Church were a carnal thingâ— or as if the visible Church were not the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies Answ. The Apostle doth not say they that are out of the Church any more then they that are uncircumcised are without hope without God nor doth he speak comparatively but absolutely Nor doth he speak universally of all without the Church but particularly of the Ephesians nor of them as out of the Church universal but Jewish nor this as they were merely negatively or privatively out for want of not taking on them the yoke of Moses Law but as they walked after the course of the world v. 2 3. So that these things are not said of them barely as non-visible churchmembers then in the Jewish Church as infants are now in the Christian for then these things might have bin said of Cornelius and his house as well as of them who were uncircumcised not in the Commonwealth of Israel but as they were idolaters alienated from the life of God and so were neither members of the Church visible nor invisible of true believers at that time Therefore to charge us with making the estate of infants of believers by our doctrine as the estate of those mentioned Ephes. 2.12 is a meer calumny tending to nothing else but indirectly to create prejudice in men against the truth And of the same kinde is that which followes which insinuates as if by denying infants visible churchmembership we lessened Christs love were insensible of it and the glorious riches of the Gospel made Christ less tender now of infants of believers then in Moses time and had such unworthy thoughts of Christ as if he would put all our children out of his Church and knew not the difference between Christ and Moses all which are meer flams and frivolous false accusations fit to take with shallow Paedobaptists who are caught with flourishes of Rhetorick rather then solid reason And for that which hee censures as my blindness I may rather admire his in not discerning it For however to be a member of Christs Church may be more then a carnal thing yet to bee a visible Churchmember by natural discent without faith is but a carnal thing and in this respect the Church Jewish was more carnal then the Christian Church as the Scriptures intimate though they were the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies The rest that follows is in the same calumniating vein for wee say as the Apostle Gal. 4.27 that is that the new Covenant or Gentile Church hath more children then the Jewish in that there were more believers in the world on the preaching of the Gospel as is said Revel 5.9 thâ—n in the national Church Jewish nor do wee as Mr. B. belies us make all or any of the children of the new Covenant or Gentile Church cast out for tâ—ey onely are those who are by promise born after the spirit that is true believers v. 28 29. and not as ignorantly and fondly Mr. B. imagines all the infant children of Gentile believers Nor do wee by our doctrine contradict the Apostles words Heb. 12.40 which are ridiculously applied to infants visible Churchmembership For the better thing provided for us in that which the believers afore Christ received not which is by some conceived to bee heaven but generally Protestant Divines understand it of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh and the clear knowledge of him which if true proves what I avâ—r that Christs exhibition in the flesh the gift of the spirit and the revelation of the Gospel and the taking in of the Gentiles are in stead of that visible Churchmembership the Jewes had and all the priviledges annexed However it cannot bee infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. makes it for that they had as Mr. B. asserts and therefore the denying of it by me makes not us in so much worse a condition then they Nor do wee by denying infants visible Churchmembership aver the partition wall taken down Ephes. 2.14 by Christ to be in
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
and assurâ—d for conâ—inuance while the law standeth Now you muâ—t understand first that God may bestow on some particular person or family on the ground of some special service which they or their fathers have done or of meer mercy some special corporal blessing especially limited to some short or certain time And that his common preserviâ—g sustaining mercies are over all his works and and yet none of this will prove men Churchmembers 2. But when God doth not name any particular person or family for his mercies but estates them on a species or sort of persons and when it is not a mâ—er corporal mercy that is so stated but either a spiritual mercy common oâ— special or else mercy in the general without specification and when this is not on any ground of any particâ—lar action or service done by any particular man but upon a ground or condition common to others not named and all this not liâ—ited to any short or certain time but stated to continuance and that by a legal promise assuring it and not onely a meer offer of it in this case it will certainely proove thâ—m members of the Church Answ. 1 Mr. B. leavâ— out in the minor the term all which was in the major of the first syllogism which if it had been put in the minor as it was necessary hee should do to prove the conclusion hee should prove it would not have been proved out of the text which doth not assure mercy to all the children of all that love him but to thousanâ—s that is multitudes of theâ— and to those mercy is not assured absolutely without condition of their love of God nor is mercy in the text promised perpetually but as Andr. Rivet on Exod. 20.6 God doth not so extend the bounds of his mercy that hee may not also deny it to the posterity of some godly men For these things are said of those things which for the most part happen Gods liberty beeing alwayes reserved in his judgements and the distribution of good things So wee reade the sonnes of Godly parents to have been forsaken of God and grievously punished 2. The consequence of his major is denied and to his dictates for proof hee brings none but his own sayings I answer first by denying that all those must bee taken for visible Churchmembers on whom God hath stated or assured his mercy by promise Exod. 20.6 no not though it were stated as Mr. B. would have it no promise no not of sanctifying grace making of it self a person a visible Churchmember as I have shewed often before 2. I deny that the mercy Exod. 20 6. is stated as Mr. B. imagines but say 1. That the mercy there meant is stated on the Israelites specially 2. That it is not meant of spiritual but outward mercies not now promised to the most holy Saint on earth 3. That it was declared on a particular ground of Gods peculiar respect to Israel whom hee brought out of Egppt. 4. That it is limited to a certain time while they continued to be his people which was not to be perpetually 3. I deny that the words Exod. 20.6 Deut. 5.10 do expresly contain a promise but onely a declaration of Gods frequent dealing which I confess doth imply a promise as his declaration Exod. â— 5 Deut. 5.9 doth imply a threatening yet I think it not fit to call it a promise sith the Apostle Ephes. 6.2 termes the fifth commandment the first commandment with promise But Mr. B. adds Now that it is the priviledge of the Church onely to have God thus engaged to be mercifull to them and that in a way of distinction from others as it is in this commandment promise is to me a truth beyond dispute And if any do doubt of it I argue with them thus 1. If no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men out of the Church can be shewn in the Scripture then we must take it as proved that there is none But no such promise can be shewn estating such mercy on any others therefore c. They that can shew any such promise let them produce it Answ. The assertion is not a truth beyond dispute but may be questioned nor is the consequence good there being no such declaration of God that he hath made no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men but what can be shewn in the Scripture and if it were yet till Mr. B. hath shewed that the mercy Exod 20.6 is greater then God vouchsafes to persons out of the Church visible it may be held notwithstanding any thing Mr. B produceth that such mercy is promised to persons out of the Church However it is most false that God hath assured his mercy on no other society then the Church If the promise Gen. 3.15 be understood of all mankind as meant by the womans seed as he before in his third Letter to me and after here ch 23. expounds it then there is a promise of mercy stated on otheâ—s then the Church and the same may be said of Gen. 9.12 15 16. besides what is implied in the speeches Psal. 36.6 Psal 145.9 1 Tim. 4.10 Till Mr. B. shew a greater mercy is stated on the children of all that love God then is on Cyrus Isa. 45.1 c. there is a promise shewn in Scripture of such mercy to one out of the Church The like to Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27.6 And the promises of calling the Gentiles of re-ingraffing the Jews Rom. 11.26 27. are promises to persons out of the Church and yet of mercy yea the chiefest mercy and therefore Mr. Bs. dictates are but vain Yet he goes on thus 2. Briefly consider to the contrary 1. Those without the Church are said to be without hope without God strangers to the Covenant of promises Ephes. 2.12 Answ. It is said of the Ephesians that they were once without hope c. and it is said also that they were Gentiles uncircumcised but it doth noth not follow therefore that all Gentiles uncircumcised were without Christ not having hope without God in the world Nor doth it follow that all Gentiles were out of any visible Church who were uncircumcised nor doth it follow they had no promises of mercy who were strangers from the Covenants of promise there meant It is true this Text proves that the estate of the Gentiles afore the Gospel was preached to them was as Paul describes it Yet this neither proves that there were none who were out of the Commonwealth of Israel and were strangers from the Covenants of promises made to Israel had no mercy assured to them equal to that Exod. â—0 6 2. Saith Mr. B. The promises are all Yea and Amen in Christ 1 Cor. 1.20 And Christ is the head over all indeed but onely to the Church Ephes. 1.22 To his called he giveth the precious promises 2 Pet. 1.4 Answ. The promises 2 Cor. 1.20 are such as were in Christ and must be understood of saving promises
which are not made to the visible Church as visible much less to the children of visible churchmembers as such but onely to those that are of the invisible and therefore this Text proves not that no mercy such as is meant Exod. 20.6 is assured to any society or persons but those of the visible Church The same also may be said of 2 Pet. 1.4 where the promises are given to the effectually called and that by them they are partakers of the Divine nature And for the other Text though there be no mention of promises in it at all yet if any be implied the speech is meant onely of the Church of Gods elect not the meer visible Church which alone is his body the fulness of him that filleth all in all and therefore if these Texts prove no mercy promised but to the Church they prove no mercy promised but to the invisible Church which is contrary to Mr. Bs. purpose here 3. Saith he By faith it is that promises were obtained Heb. 11.33 Answ. It is said by faith they subdued Kingdomes in the same v. and therefore after the rate of Mr. Bs. reasoning none should subdue Kingdomes but the Church The faith there is such a faith as the just lived by ch 10.38 therefore if Mr. Bs. arguing be good promises of mercy should be made to none but those who believe with such a faith and consequently it is not the meer visible Church but the invisible onely to whom such mercy is assured The answer is by denying the consequence that because promises were obtained by faith therefore mercy is not assured to any by promise but the Church 4. He adds To Abraham and his seed were the promises made Gal. 3.16 both common and special The children of the promise are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Therefore if those without the Church were children of the promise then they should be the seed The promise is sure to all the seed Rom. 4.16 The promise is to you and your children and as many as the Lord shall call Acts 2.39 The seed are heirs of the promise Answ. Mr. Bs. needlesness still appears He should prove that such mercy as he conceives promised Exod. 20.6 which he will not avouch to be saving mercy is assured to none but the Church and he means the visible Church but here he brings promises of saving mercy which he dare not say to be made to the children of all that love him Exod. 20.6 and are indeed made onely to those who are of the invisible Church and therefore impertinently alledged The promises Gal. 3.16 are such as are made to Christ either personal for his body mystical or to Christ mystical and the promises are those by which is the inheritance v. 18. righteousness by faith v. 21 22 which can be true onely of the elect and so that v. 29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise So Rom. 4.16 is meant onely of true believers and Rom. 9.8 of the elect onely Now it 's not denied that the promises of righteousness and life belong onely to the Church invisible but these promises are far different from the promise to the children of them that love God Exod. 20.6 which Mr. B. will have onely meant of the visible Church and of things much below saving benefits The Text Acts 2.39 it as impertinently alledged as hath been proved at large before the promise there being not meant of any visible priviledge nor the fathers there considered as believers or lovers of God but as crucifiers of Christ and the promise not said to be to any of either sort but those who were called by God 5. Saith Mr. B. The Church is the house and family of God and the promises are his treasure and Christs legacies and the word of promise is his Testament therefore not for these without The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the word is the truth In the middest of the Church are Gods praises Heb. 2.12 therefore in the Church are his mercies and promises It is by the Church that the manâ—fold wisdome of God is known Eph. 3 1â— The Church onely is that body whereof the Lord of the promises is head Col. 1.18 Answ. The promises of saving benefits are Gods treasure and belong onely to the invisible Church but it follows not therefore that God makes no promise or the mercy Exod. 20.6 belongs to none out of the visible Church Let it be yeelded the Church is the pillar of truth and the word is the truth yet that God makes no promises to Cyrus Nebuchadnezzar and others out of the Church or that his promise to them is not true or that he vouchsafes no mercy to them follows not God is praised in the Church and his counsel made known and Christ the head of the Church onely and yet all praise promise and mercy not appropriate to the Church 6. Yet again They that are not in covenant are not under the promises of this mercy or have not this mercy stated on them by promise But those that are without the Church are not in covenant This argument is past contradiction No man dare say but these are covenant mercies in this promise mentioned Wicked men in the Church are within the covenant as I have proved in the Appendix of my Aphorisms but those without are not in covenant though they may have some conditional promises offered The covenant and such promises as those go together Therefore it is called the covenant of promises Eph. 2.12 Rom. 9.1 2. So is mercy onely assured by the covenant Deut. 7.9 12. and that to the Church onely 1 Kings 8.23 Neh. 1.5 9.32 Mic. 7.20 Luke 1.50 72. 1 Pet. 2.10 Many more Scriptures shew the conjunction between Gods mercy and covenant and most certainly they are all out of covenant that are out of the visible Church Answ. If Paedobaptists had not a mind to mock rather then to teach people by their writings me thinks being so often called upon to speak distinctly what covenant they mean when they say infants and visible churchmembers are in covenant and in what manner they are in covenant by Gods act their own or the baptizers they would still when they speak of being in covenant clear their meaning There are divers Covenants of God that with Noah Gen. 9. that with Abraham Gen. 17. that with the Jews Exod. 19. the new Covenant Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. Being in Covenant must needs come from their own act of covenanting and then the sense is Wicked men in the Church are within the Covenant that is they promise to God But in this sense no infant is in Covenant with God foâ— no infant promiseth to God Or being in Covenant is from Gods act of promising and thus it is most certainly false that they are all out of Covenant that are out of the visible Church For all men and beasts are in the Covenant with Noah Gen.
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
which is ascribed to God by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it unâ—easable but by his omnipotency Mr. Bl. saith that I do vainly make this engraffing to be in their sense no more then baptizing But 1. whether I wrong my Antagonists may be perceived from Mr. Ms. words in his Defâ—nce p. 135. To what I said the Jews infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed by Baptism You answer by demanding whether in good sadness I do think the Apostle here means by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by outward ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadness I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the external seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptism And he disputes against the ingraffing into the invisible Chuâ—ch therefore he can understand it of no more then baptizing 2. Nor can Mr. Bl. conformably to his tenet For if the ingraffing be such aâ— is common to infants and parents and it be admission into the visible Church of both and infants are no way else admitted then by baptizing the ingraffing is no other But saith he We understand a discipling of Gentile nations working the heart to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances tendered and assent of heart unto all that is there promised and acknowledge it a work above the power of man and confess it to be solely in the hand of God as Gen. 9.27 Acts. 1.21 We do not speak of the bare admission of one that stands intituled but the working of them to such a title and if an outward profession bee in the power of mans will yet to bring men or nations to such a profession cordially to embrace the Gospel so farre as to assent to the truth of it is above man and a worke of no such ease I reply 1. If it be not bare admission but such a work as he saith then infants are none of the branches ingraffed nor doth the ingraffing belong to them sith they have onely bare admission into the visible Church by Baptism 2. If the profession be onely from fear or carnal hopes this may be wrought by Teachers Orators especially the favour and power of Princes concurring and then it is no act above mans power to ingraff But if the heart be brought to assent cordially and so to profess Christ in sincerity as some of Mr. Bls. words seem to mean then it is by giving faith according to election and the ingraffing into the invisible Church And so Mr. Bl. while he seems to answer my argument doth unawares confirm it through the irrefragable force of the truth Which might have been further cleared from the Text Rom. 11.23 where it is said they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in for God is able to graff them in again Whence it follows while they abide in unbelief they are not graffed in when they believe they are Ergo God ingraffs by giving faith according to election My second argument was from v. 15 16 17. where the ingraffing is termed reconciliation opposite to casting away To this Mr. Sydenham answers 1. If I mean reconciliation in the strictest sense as it denotes pardon of sins and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and mediatorship then many absurdities may follow 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned may be cast off for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground Answ. 1. If by ground be meant cause I deny that to follow on the exposition of reconciliation in the strictest sense if by ground be meant onely occasion I grant it follows but count it no absurdity it being the plain dâ—claration of the Apostle 2. I grant the second 〈◊〉 understood of the fulness or body of the Gentiles and count it no absurdity after the time of Gods separating of Israel to be his people there were onely some proselytes reconciled to God but no full and ample number so as to make any numerous Church of themselves 3. The third I yeeld as no absurdity understanding the casting off of the same people not the same persons from what their ancestors were not themselves But Mr. S. answers 2 ly by distinction of reconciliation into ouâ—ward and inward and he would have it meant of outward reconciliation by bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensation of the Church which is Gods common way to salvation and is to some effectual to inward grace unto others onely to outward privilâ—dges Answ. 1. This reconciliation would exclude infants for they are not so reconciled and consequently not ingraffed and so the argument for their ingraffing hence is evacuated if the reconciliation which is confessed to be the same with the ingraffing be such as agrees not to infants 2. He doth noth not so much as offer to produce one place of Scripture in which reconciliation is so taken nor one approved writer so expounding it 3. Nor can it be expounded so For it is no reconciliation at all which he describes In reconciliation there is still taking away enmity but in the bringing under the meanes of the Gospel there may be no taking away of enmity either from them to God for they may hate him as much yea more then before or from God to them for he may haâ—e them as much or more then before 4. Nor in this place can it be the meaning For the reconciliation of the world v. 15. is v. 1â— the riches of the world of the Gentiles But their riches imports something opposite to their fall diminishing or detriment and their fall must be to damnation for it is v. 11. opposed to salvation their riches must needes therefore bee to salvation so termed vers 11. But saith he The body of the Gentile world which I mean are not so reconciled as by election and saving grace though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world Answ. The body of the Gentiles that is a full ample part of them incomparably greater then the number of the proselytes to the Jewish Church is reconciled and hath been for many ages to God by election and saving grace Mr. Bl. also answers by distinction of reconciliation gradual either to take in or hold a people in visible communion or total to receive them with an everlasting delight in them The former he exemplifies out of Exod. 32.10 11 12 13 14. And thus applies it Reconciliaâ—ion is opposite to casting away The Jews then by reconciliation are brought into that
seed we have it all in Christ and what we have in Christ we have it all as Abrahams seed and that we are baptized into Christ that is our initiation into Christ and what ever we have as Abrahams seed is sealed unto us in Baptism By which it is evident that as Circumcision was to them so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ. If this were granted yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. for the reasons before given But because I conceive these assertions contain errours such as do mislead Paeâ—obaptists I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true or proved by any thing brought by Mr. C. or any other though this be the chief thing they alledge for infant Baptism and Mr. Church p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker tels us all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision Let 's try the strength of it The latter position seems to be this That as circumcision was to the Jews so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance To be the very same for substance is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances or having substance except as the subject of them as all accidents have As substance is put for essence so it cannot be said they are the same for substance sith cutting is one thing washing another and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations Circumâ—ision the old Baptism the new I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abrahams much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture and how often I have proved it false may be seen in many of my writings specially the 3d. part of this Review But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed is not true For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the comming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles as they were made to Abraham and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished For then Baptism as Circumcision was should be a shadow and type of Christ to come and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant or the promise oâ— righâ—eousness or eternal life by faith granted to be in the latent sense comprized in that Covenant I find no where in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness Gal. 5.2 3. nor by baptism but by consequent The Scripture rather makes it a seal if it must be so called of our promise to God then of Gods promise to us Nor is there any thing Gal. 3.27.29 to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed or that it is now in the room of Circumcision For neither is it said that what wee have as Abrahams seed is sealed to us in Baptism wee are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism but that whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union or outward profession it is ascribed to faith v. â—6 and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ then Gods to us nor is there any thing spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abrahams natural seed which was the use of Circumcision and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant or in the room of Circumcision is not proved thence But let 's view what is further said for them or either of them That our Baptism succeeds in the room place and use of Circumcicision is the common speech of Paedobaptists against it 1. I argued in my Examen that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision it was among the Jew long afore Christ came and it was by Divine appointment from the Baptism of John till Christs death now that which succeeds comes after is not concurrent To this Mr. M. replied 1. by concession and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism which is enervated in the 2d part of this Review sect 24. 2. Saith he A Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Defence p. 171. But this is not true a Lord Major elect doth not succed till hee bee sworn in the interim he is no Lord Major in being but onely in possibility and probability which may never bee A successour hath no place while the predecessour is present Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 3. div 5. 2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to bee in the room and place of circumcision For neither in proper acception have either room or place nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ciâ—cumcised baptizing and baptized is it true parents though private persons might circumcise not so in baptism women were to be baptized not so in circumcision These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me which are but vain this argâ—ing being necessary to clear truth or by reference to what he had said before which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review sect 18. I further said If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptised were to be initiated it is not true For Baptism initiated into the Christian circumcision into the Jewish church To this Mr. M. If you mean onely the several administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speak truth but not to the purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant but if you mean that the Church of the Jews and wee are not one and the
faith of Elders keep to the end which are most fitlâ— appliâ—d to doctrine make more probâ—ble as I noted in my Apology § 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon in which men speak not exactly as in other writings 2. The words hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit could be known onely by guess and conjectural presage it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told and therefore the other speeches as likewise other speeches as that tom 7. de pecc mer. remiss l. 1. c. 24. shew was his wont are to bee conceived as spoken not out of any good records but from that which he found observed in his time where he had been 3 Because serm 14. de verbis Apost he saith that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit though he onely set down what waâ— determined in that Council of Carthage which was in the third Century 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false uncertain contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions universal observations that many Protestants have discredited them of which some testimonies are set down by me in my Pâ—aecursor sect 3. Salmasius appar ad libr. de primatu pâ—pae menâ—ions some other as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church and yet were deceived Hierome saith it was in all the world decreed that one should be a Bishop over others and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories shews it waâ— otherwiâ—e in Scotland of old And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1 6. hee makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter c. of eating the Lords Supper fasting as always universally observed in which he was mistaken Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument as if I had said Easter was always held my words were If Austins rule were true then Easter should be from the Apostles not because I thought it true but because Austin thought so and so by his rule Easter must bee counted to come from the Apostles and his testimony is as good for it as for the universal observation of inâ—ant Baptism 5. Not onely Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients as amply as infant Baptism Jewel Sermon at Pauls Cross p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants which is yet also practised by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia The Church of Rome upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise The putting milk and honey into the mouth of thâ—â—aptized the standing at prayer on Lords days between Easter and Whitsontide the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent with many more are now left though Bellarmin l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tels us Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos absolvendi pâ—nitentes in paschaâ—e verum est apud Lutheranos caeterùm apud Catholicos ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur which I mention to shew that there arâ— some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing â—p Jewel Deâ—ense of the Apology of the Church of England part 2. ch 16. div 1. saith there have been errours and great errours from the beginning hee mentions there and in the Sermon at Pauls cross baptizing for and of the dead giving the Communion to the dead body and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole he rejects customs of the ancient Church and condemnes carrying home to the absent the Communion mixing water with the wine and many more things and still requires the Lords Supper and Baptism to bee administred according to the institution of Christ which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever shew to have been of infant Baptism I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Pauls Cross I am content to yeild and â—o subscribe otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptistâ— by accusing mee as opposing the universal Church in Austins sense though I deny it to be true do but conâ—emn themselves who with Papists dâ— reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 aâ—es Apostolical and of universal observation near the Apostles timâ—s Nor is the 〈◊〉 prâ—pâ—sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the â—postles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in doâ—â—rine or disciplâ—ne For if the whâ—le Church might err so in one age it may also in all â—ges câ—llectively considered the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colleâ—â—ively considered then in each age distriâ—utively considered nor anâ— means given to them after the Apostles colleâ—â—ively considered to keep from errour then to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more meanes to keep them from errour then other ages yet they erred in doctrine and discipâ—ine as many writers shew about Easter the Millenary opinion anâ— many other As for the promise Matth. 16 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible the gates of hell have and do prevail against them but of the invisible and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but that they shall not erre finally to damnation which if they did then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them that is as Cameron rightly in his prâ—lection they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13 to the whâ—le Church but to the Apostles the promise being as well to shew them things to come as to lead them into all truth And yet the promise iâ— not so maâ—e to the Apostles but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching they were so guided as that they should noâ— err But of this point of the militant Churches erring I need say no more but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Rainold thesi 3. 6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally pâ—actise infant Baptism yet neiâ—her were the present doctrine or practise justified by it but condemned and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to pâ—eaâ— against the universal Church as my self For it is manifest from the places whâ—re there iâ— mention of it in the Ancients that they â—aught it and praâ—â—iâ—ed it onely upon the opinion of the necessity of iâ— to save an infant from perishing and because the very baptism did give grace remission of original sin made believers heirs of the â—ingdome of heaven and accordingly they practiseâ— it onely in case of danger of death very seldome and this they did to unbelievers children as well as believers 〈◊〉 a
is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews