of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves church-Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
controversie But whether also the first original corrupted nature it selfe before any sin against recovering grace did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdome of the Redeemer or whether the sins of later parents may propagaâ—e this as an addiâ—ional corruption in our nature I will not now stand to discuss Onely as to our present business it s certain that the general natural enmity to Satan may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation yea and as listed in Christs Army may have man of its priviledges yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ they may be under a greater curse 10. As it is certain that it is not onely Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise and is here called the seed of the woman as is before proved and may be more and is commonly granted so it is to be noted that those others in whom this enmity are put are called here the seed of the woman and not the seed of Christ though the chief of them are his seed And so though the promise is made to none but the the womans seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed Till you can prove that infants are none of her seed we must take this fundamental promise to extend to infants and that very plainly without using any violence with the Text. Answ. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentiâ—e with winding in and out wrigling and wresting the Text one while it is a promise another while a precept sometimes meant of one sort of enmity sometimes of another sometimes the woman under one consideration sometimes under another sometimes the seed of the woman comprehend all the natural seed sometime onely one kind with so many ambiguous speeches and unproved dictates and inconsequent inferences that I know not what better to term it then the way of a serpent on a rock which the Wise man said was too wonderfull for him and one of the things he knew not Prov. 30.20 21. And sure when I yeeld to acknowledge this discourse as a convincing proof of the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which Mr. B. asserts I shall deliver my self as a Pupil to him take him for an infallible Oracle and profess blind obedience But let me see what I can make of this Riddâ—e The sum of it so far as I can collect is this Here is an enmity proclaimed legally against the Devils pravity malignity and works hâ—reby all the seed natural of the woman are obliged to list themselves in Christs Army or the woman as a believer is to list all her infant progeny in the Redeemers Army infants being part of her seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed this fundamental promise extends to them and all duly listed are visible Churchmembers Ergo here is the fundamental law or ordinance for infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed To discern how silly and insipid these arguings are if I may use â—r Bs. own phrase let us grant him here is a promise and precept implied and inquire what listing is here enjoyned of whom by whom and how far this makes the listed visible Churchmembers The listing is not here exprest but in his book of Baptism p. 14. he saith They are first made Disciples and then solemnly admitted eâ—tred or listed by baptism P. 24 As every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn engaging sâ—gne so every one that hath right to be solemly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily bee admitted by baptism Christs listing engaging signe The persons to be listed are according to Mr. B. mankinde the woman and her seed even infants no exception being put in against infants or any age of her seed The persons that are to list are each man for he saith It is the duty of mankinde to list themselves infants being at the parents dispose it is they that are to list them in Christs army and this listing which he counts duely done makes infants visible Churchmembers Concerning which I grant that God doth proclaim here an enmity against the Diabolical praviâ—y malignity and works and that it is the duty of mankinde to fight against satan to joyn with Christ For this is no more but that God forbids sin and it 's our duty to resist â—t and to believe and follow Christ and here is a fundamenâ—al promise that they who do so shall bruise the serpents head or prevail against satan Nor do I deny that it is the duty of parents yea of all men to do what lies in them to engage persons even iâ—fants to this war provided they do it by wayes allowed and appointed as by their prayers vowes to God or the like But it is utterly false 1. that there is any precept of listing by baptism here for baptism is a mere positive rite of the New Testament not enjoyned here 2. That it is the duty of all mankinde to list themselves For then it is their duty to baptise themselves 3. That it is the duty of the woman to list her self and all her seed For then she had been bound to baptise her self and the children of unbelievers as well as believers Cains seed as well as Abels and if it were supposed that she had lived to this day she had been bound to list all the infants at least of the professed Infidels at this day For if it were a precept unrepealed it must have bound her still 4. That such a listing as Mr. Bs. words import is either duly done or that the listed in that manner are all visible Churchmembers 5. That here is any fundamental promise made to persons so listed 6. That as listed in Christs army in the manner Mr. B conceives infants have the priviledge of Christs soldiers None of these things denied by me have a word of proof in all this pâ—olix discourse nor do I imagine any proof for them can be from this text and therefore conceive his discourse without proof and like the dream of a sick man or the dotage of a phantastick He adds 11. Some learned men do use contemptible arguments to prove further That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward Mr. Bedford c. that is that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman as is explained so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude That the impiety of parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more then by original sin they were hindered and therefore their faith
natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â—7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as is a limitting term appropriating the thing said to those subjects forenamed who were so qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly which was the prime inducement I conceived the speech of Peter had not been true without that limitation And this I long since told Master M. in my Exam. part 3. Sect. 6. pag. 60. If the promise be of saving graces if of Christ sent if of the outward ordinances of baptism c. if of the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts it is none of these wayes true without that limitation For neither God promised saving graces nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them And but that Master Bls. Master Bs. and such like wonderers heedlesness and peevishness are no strange thing to me I should wonder that Master Blake should no better heed my words in my Examen nor Diodati his words who he saith fully pitches upon the true sense of it which in his Annot. on Acts. 2.39 are these shall call namely by his Gospel So he doth restrain the Israelites to whom the promises are directed onely to those who by Gods gift believe in Christ see Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.28 which had Master Blake faithfully set down in stead of some other words I find in him his Reader might have discerned how false it is that the promise is to an infant child of a believer as his child without calling and have discerned that it is not my device onely but that which others before me apprehended and so no more boldness in my dealing with the Scriptures then was meet and the Apostles words to have this plain sense the promise is to you being called of God and to your children being called of God and to all afar off being called of God and to no other And to requite Master Blake I may more truly say It 's a wonder how it came into Master Blakes head to call this limitation an amplification For though the words to all that are afar off contain an amplification of the mercy either to the posterity of the Jewes or to those in the dispersion or to the Gentiles of which I will not now dispute yet the words as many as the Lord our God shall call are a plain limitation of his speech as I have proved But Master Blake addes of me 2. In that he saith this promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called is a full contradiction A Jew uncalled at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them is as much as a convert unconverted or a Gentile disciple undiscipled In case he think to come off by limiting it to an effectuall call the Scripture by himself quoted doth evidently contradict it Christ came to give them that effectuall calling and not onely to those that were thus called Ans. Master Blakes charge of contradictions is as frivolous as his wonderment Master Blakes conceit of a calling into such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is but a dream of his own for which he hath not one Scripture nor other proofe The calling is to communion with Christ and an effectuall calling else the proposition were not true nor is there any contradiction in any of the places by me quoted to this exposition the promise of Christ is fulfilled for the remission of your sins and your childrens and all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call and no other nor hath Master Blake shewed any For though Christ came to give effectual calling yet it is true also he came to give remission onely to those that were thus called nor is there any opposition much less contradiction in those speeches Master Blake goes on He yet said Peter doth exhort to repentance and baptism together and in the first place perswades to repentance then to baptism which shewes repentance to be in order before baptism To which he answers not by denying it but by giving a reason of it because they had crucified Christ c. To which I reply this grant shewes that they had not right to baptism without repentance though the promise were to them they were in the Church-state of the Jewes c. and consequently Master Blakes proposition false Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains in his sense have a right to baptism What he addes And yet he shewes that they and their seed are under the promise of God and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender in his present way of administration to be continued his people still in Covenant and that as is plainly enough signified that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children that the Jewes even those that had not yet embraced Christ were not yet dispossest of the promise but stood as a people of God in visible covenant and their children in the sense in which Master Blake means is false and yet were it true it is against Master Blakes proposition sith notwithstanding this being in covenant yet were they not admitted or to be admitted to baptism without repentance He addes Master T. hath yet this evasion and saith the text speak◠not expresly of infants but of children indefinitely and if infants be not children we will be content that they be cast out of covenant and will hold no plea for their Church-membership and baptism Ans. As infants are children so are men and women of twenty or more years old and therefore the term children unless it be proved to be taken universally or particularly of infants the Covenant-state as they call it though we should grant such an estate there meant would not be thence concluded And yet infants were to be circumcised not simply because they were Abrahams seed nor because in Covenant but by reason of Gods command And though a woman and disciple be not Synonyma yet women being numbred among disciples it is an express example of womens coming together to break bread which mentions the disciples breaking bread nor was I at all put to it much less hard put to it when this came in for an answer For without this an answer was given before to the Argument and this was added as an over-plus and so was that which Master Blake nibbles at in that which followes I had said the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all of whom we are but of the children of the Jews and therefore if that promise be extended to infants which doth not appear the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jewes infants To this Master Blake thus saith If the Gospel held out any such transcending priviledges appertaining to the seed of the Jewes above the Gentiles Master T. may do well to produce a text for it otherwise we shall take
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
grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper unless it be founded upon circumcision yet in practice we know they did eat it and if they eat it not as circumcised persons tell me by what right they did it Answ. I have proved Examen part 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28 10.17 and 12.13 Acts 20.7 are express precept and example for womens receiving the Lords Supper And for eating the Paseover there is an expresse precept That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it Exod 12.47 in which women were meant and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation v. 20. therfore either women must eat the Passeover or else they must not eat bread so that we need not go to circumcision for womens eating the Passeover Yea if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it For Exodus 12.48 no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it but males and though it be said no uncircumcised might eat yet it is not said all circumcised must eat much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus If you say they were included in the Houshold Exod. 12.3 4. every houshold was to eat the Paschal Lamb and there was no exception of women I reply first grant but the same consequence that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole housholds were baptized and no exception of children that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized and this Controversy is quickly ended Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb which yet we need not as I have shewed but from Exod. 12.3 4. in that every houshold was to eat the Lamb and there was no exception of Women yet the consequence were not good whole housholds were baptized therefore infants because not expresly excepted For as Exod. 12.3 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb though not in express words yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few daies old suppose eight or nine So where Act. 16.15 33. and 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 the houshold is said to be baptized besides this that no infants are expressed in the same chapter or elsewhere the speech is plainly interpreted to be meant of those that heard the word and believed as Acts the eleventh chapter and fourteenth verse and ch 16. v. 32 34. and 18.8 1 Cor. 16.15 as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists But saith Mr. M. I add further it is not said the whole houshold shall eat it for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it Answ. It is said Exod. 12.4 they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum every man according to his eating which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat Yea further saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48 49. there is order taken for the male stranger let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females Answer It is said verse fourty seven That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it and the Proselytes of Righteousnesse women as well as men were of that Congregation and verse fourty nine it is said One Law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope my exception against the consequence of his Argument They are foederati Therefore they are to be signati stand good and it is not yet proved that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did intitle to Circumcision much less to baptism which were enough to overthrow his first argument But sith it is my task I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute taking in by the way Master Blakes third section of the 42. chapter of his Vindic foederis SECT XIX Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled MR. Blake asserts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal and first he meddles with my Examen and then with my Anti-paedobaptism To my objection that the Proposition is not true that all that were federate in Abrahams family were to be signed for neither Males afore the eighth day nor females were to be circumcised besides his avouching Master Marshallâ— answer as sufficient which is reviewed before he saith Is there no connexion between them because he that receives into Covenant and appoints the seal hath prescribed a time when it shall be applyed To which I say it proves that there is not a connexion between being federate and to be signed to make this Proposition true All that are federate are to be signed barely in that they are federate For they are federate the first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh day as well as the eighth yet not to be signed whereas if there was such a connexion between them according to Gods will that the one being put the other is to be put they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate And if it be Gods will that they should be signed but not till the appointed time after I might say that though infants were federate yet they were not to be signed with baptism till Gods appointed time which is not till they be disciples and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant the Major Proposition All that are in Covenant are to be signed being true only with this limitation in the appointed time which is not for baptism till they be Disciples And whereas in answer to my objection that if infants have right to the seal by being in covenant then they have right to the Lords Supper he answers 1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive This is false for baptism is enjoined as a duty and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16 Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37. 2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper jus ad rem not jus in re a right to it yet by reason of infancy have their actual
that commission is shewed before in the second Part of this Review Sect. 12. c. If it be a base exposition which he sets down it is base dealing if he set it down as mine exposition who yeeld that their commission was to disciple all of a nation who could be discipled though it is true that they could not do it to a whole nation in a day as Moses did and in the event they discipled but here one and there one in a house for the most part Yet more saith Mr. B. And what means that in Revel 11.15 Are not these Kingdomes added to the Church as well as Israel I answer That it means not as Mr. B. imagines that the whole people of Kingdomes shall become Christs visible Church but the rule or dominion of them shall be his as the close of the v. and ch 12.10 shew which makes nothing for Mr. B. as will appear by exâ—minining his frivolous arguing ch 13. Yet again saith Mr. B. like a brave Goliath And are not all professors of Christianity in England as truly in the Church as all in Israel were I challenâ—e any to answer me herein and undertake to make it good against them as far as will stand with modesty to challenge whatsoever any Separatist commonly called Independents or Anabaptists may say to the contrary for I have pretty well tried the strength of their arguing in this And I have pretty well tried Mr. Bs. strength in disputes and find it small though his words be big I do not answer to the name of a Separatist or Anabaptist they are Mr. Bs. abusive language of me Let Independent Paedobaptists answer it as they please I thâ—nk if they will baptize infanâ—s from the rule of circumcision and the Jewish-Church-state they must assert a national Church admit all that avoâ—ch themselves Christians to breaking of Bread and their infant males to Baptism And I conceive Presbyterians by the grounds they maintain Paedobaptism are debarred from keeping the ignorant and scandalous from the Lords Supper and though I challenge not as Mr. B. yet presume I shall make both good in their season As for the present question of Mr. B. I grant it and then I hope we shall not fight about it Yet I tâ—ll Mr. B. I do not take all for professors of Christâ—anity whom perhaps Mr. B. doth nor do I think Mr. B. can find me one professor of Christianity among all the infants in England Yet a little further sâ—ith Mr. B. Either Mr. T. by Church call means that which was the means of entring infants or men at aâ—e or somewhat common to both The Jews did all enter into the Church as members in infancy even they that deferred Circumcision till forty years old and the women that were not circumcised And what call had these infants that cannot understand a call Answ. The Church call of the Jewish nation or family of â—braham was by his authority in a way common to men of age and infants Abraham and his house were by circumcision and declaring Gods Covenant formed into a visible Church and accordingly all that were born of Abraham and all that were taken into his house while they continued in that Family or Nation were of that Church And this way of Church call by bringing into the bond of the Covenant the whole Nation infants servants men and women together was by the authority of Moses renewed at mount Horeb and in the land of Moab Deut. 29.1 though circumcision were deferred for a time And this call was of the infants though not by themselves apart yet conjunctly with the whole Nation the chief representing the rest Exod. 19.7 Deut. 29.10 and among them the infants who might as well understand a call as a Covenant into which Mr. B. contends they did enter Mr. B. adds The Proselytes who were made Church-members at age were first converted to God and professed the true Religion and so brought in their children with them They were converted not all in a day but by times not onely by Moses or succeeding Magistrates but chiefly by Priests or Levites or zealous people or by what way or means God was pleasâ—d to use for that end I did intâ—eat Mr. T. to shew me any material difference between the call of these Proselyâ—es into the Church in all ages till Christ and the call of us Gentiles into the Church And truly he gave me an answer of meer words for a put off wherein he hath a notable faculty which I can find no weight nor sence in nor am I able to tell what he would say to it nor can I conceive what possibly can be said of any moment And as Camero well noteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is now used in the Church as it were in the place of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Discipling new to us is as Proselyting was to them So that you see now what this Church call is which he layeth so great a weight on and how much in the main it differeth from ours Answ. When that time was that Mr. B. made this request to me and what imperfect answer it was which I gave him I do not well remember I guess it was when I had conference with him alone Jan. 25. 1649. in his chamber when he drew me to a conference with him pretendiâ—g friendliness but as the event shewed having Jan. 15. before when I suspeâ—â—ed no such dealing written his abusive Epistle before his Saints everlasting rest in which he falsly accused me and proclaimed his driving me to absurdities in the Dispute Jan. 1. drew from me what he could â—or his advantage and then printed it in this Book without my revising my answers or his acquainting me with his printing them or rightly according as they were printing them as may be perceived by this Review and mocking me with this fraudulent trick when I expected according to his promise to see his arguments written from some of his own or my auditors to whom he would communicate them But leaving him to the Lord I shall now give a plain answer to his demand Proselytes were of two sorts 1. Of the gate as Cornelius owâ—ing the God of Israel but not joyning to the Church and policy of Israel These were not of the Jewish Church visible though they were of the Church invisible of true believers and of the Church visible universal of professors of the true God For they were accounted unclean and shunned by the Jews Acts 10.28 11.2 3. Their calling I conceive was as ours is by the word of God made known to them nor do I find that infants were any part of the Church of them whether domestick as in Cornelius house Acts 10.2 or congregational of which I find not an instance nor of any rites or discipline they had 2. Of righteousness who were made such partly by perswasion as Mat. 23.15 and so far their call agrees with our call and the other sort of Proselytes partly by
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.
hear Moses nor do such acts as might signifie the covenanting 4. Because it was so at other times Exod. 19.7 Josh. 9.15 19. which if true this place proves not that God had given parents the interest and authority to covenant for their children 5. The wives were parents as well as the husbands but it is not probable that the wives did covenant for the children therefore not the parents as parents but under some other consideration 3. Saith Mr. B. But that any other that had the use of reason should not enter their own consent is a fiction not to be admitted And yet Mr. T. in his confutation Sermon excludeth the wives from a personal covenanting as well as the infants but barely on his own authority Nay he saith it was onely the captains and Officers though the Covenant is made with the rest Answ. I have given my reasons for what I conceive I impose them not on others it is sufficient for present that I have vindicated my assertion so much inveighed against by Mr. B. that thou v. 12. doth not necessarily comprehend infants 2. Saith Mr. B. Mr. T. denied in our Dispute that these infants were visible churchmembers for when hee had maintained that none were churchmembers but those that were circumcised and that churchmembership was not then without circumcision I told him that the infants for 40. years in the wilderness were not circumcised and yet were churchmembers and proved it from this Covenant yet did he resolutely deny it that the infants were church members Whereupon seeing he wasted time in wrangling I was bold to say I did verily believe that contrary to our first agreement he disputed against his own conscience seeing he could not believe himself that the infants then were no churchmembers and that none but the circumcised were churchmembers But he took it ill that I should so charge him to go against conscience and yet when I told him that women were churchmembers though not â—ircumcised he confessed all and yeelded that the infants were so too And indeed else God had no Church or almost none in the wilderness when all but Calâ—b and Joshua were dead of the old stock and all of forty years old were uncircumcised yet Steven calls it the Church in the wilderness Acts 7.38 But I think it vain to prove that those were church-members that entred such a Covenant He that will deny this is scarce to be disputed with Answ. I do confess there was much time wasted in the Dispute and that my answers were varied according to my several apprehensions of Mr. Bs. meaning which by reason of his ambiguities and uncertain expressions I could not be assured of nor would he be brought to explain any thing to me but what I could force him to by distinction which yet hee shifted off that I might be still at a loss what to determine First hee asserted a law of admitting infants visible churchmembers unrepealed which I conceived was that of circumcision and thereupon denied infants in the wilderness to have beene visible church-members meaning solemnly admitted in which sense I meant that churchmembership was not then without Circumcision But when hee denied hee meant Circâ—mcision I pressed him to tell what other law there was which hee then did not but went to prove them church-members which I confessed if not understood as so admitted but as part of that people as the women were Secondly when I found hee used not the term visible churchmembers as it is taken by Protestant writers for those that professed the Christian faith I denied infants were churchmembers visible by the way which made them such in the Christian Church though they were visible churchmembers according to the way of constitution of the Jewish Church which was a Commonwealth of which all that were members were church-members This is the true summe of what past between us in that time Mr. B. speakes of in which nothing was spoken against my conscience as hee unbrother like charged mee and such altercation as was was necessitated on my part by his averseness from explaining his meaning which I instantly pressed him to but still hee put by with one flirt or another at mee that hee might drive mee to speake something which hee might represent as hee still did in the most odious manner hee could to the auditors which injurious way hath been that which hath confirmed his party though thereby they are abused by him For present I grant the infants Deut. 29.11 were then visible churchmembers but not by that Covenant Against this Mr. B. in his Correct sect 5. saith thus 2. He saith Moses made that Covenant with him that waâ— not there that day that is their posterity not yet born shall it therefore be saiâ— that they were visible members c. I answer 1. it is evident the Covenaâ—t spoke de praesenti to those that were buâ— de futuro onely of those that were not in being but future They that were not could not bee members visible or invisible As they had a being so they had a membership that is in posse in futuritione non iâ— esse By vertue of this deed of gift they should be born churchmembers If a Landlord do by lease make over any land to you and your childrens children paying so much rent doth it follow that your children who are born are none of this mans tenants because your childrens children who are unborn are not his tenants actually but potentially Or if a King be set over us and out children and childrens children by compact doth it follow that our children in being are not his subjects in being because our childrens children in posse are not subjects in esse but in posse onely Ah here is good arguing Answ. I find Moses speaking of Gods Covenant but not the Covenant speaking nor is that expression good sense nor was the speech to any other then were there though it was of what should be after and that as well what should be after to them that were present as to them that were to be after v. 13. and I think it true that they which were not could not be members visible though if the invisible Church be so from election aâ— most Protestant Divines say they might be members invisible And it is true that as they had a being so they had membership visible not in being but possibility and futuriâ—ion But this is no answer to my reason but a strengthening of it For whereas the the reason was this That Covenant doth not make actually visible churchmembers which is made with them who are not actually visible churchmembers But that Covenant was made with them that were not actually visible churchmembers for it was made with the unborn who are confessed not to be actually visible churchmembers by Mr. B. himself Ergo. The major is plain from the rule in Logick The same as the same doth always the same And for Mr. Bs. instances it is true that
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
not a word that intimates any society here pronounced blessed much less the society of the Church Nor doth the term blessed prove it must be meant of the Church For others then the Church and churchmembers are sometimes blessed as Psal. 137.9 Psal. 144 15. Mr. B. here ch 24. They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 Luke 23.29 6. Mr. B. himself tels us p. 330. That he affirms onely a certaâ—nty of churchmembership and a strong probability of the justification of the infants of the righteous But if we urge the word strictly they onely are blessed whose sins are forgiven Psal. 32.1 Rom. 4.6 7. and therefore this Text may as soon prove justification of every righteous mans seed which Mr. B. asserts not as visible churchmembership Yea no where is any termed blessed by reason of his visible churchmembership but many times for their outward prosperity as Psal. 144.15 Deut. 28.2 c. Gen. 17.20 27.38 39. And that in this respect the blessing is meant Psal. 37.26 may be gathered 1. from the constant tenour of the promises made to the righteous and their seed which either are altogether or for the most part in blessings of this life and accordingly the performance 2. Because in the New Testament in which spiritual blessings are assured there iâ— no promise of them to a believer and his seed but to believers onely 3. The occasion and series of the Text Psal. 37.25 26. leads plainly to this sense that the righteous is not so forsaken nor his seed as to be destitute of bread that though he be mercifull and lendeth yet his seed is blessed with sufficient provision of outward things 4. The Texts Psal. 112.2 Psal. 128.1 2 3 4. Psal. 144.15 lead us to this sense From all which I answer by denying the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. argument and to his proof say that it is no absurdity to pronounce persons blessed and yet â—â—ne of Gods visible Church SECT LXXI Mr. 18th arg from the priority of infants churchmembership before Circumcision His 19th from Gods proneness to mercy His 20th from blessing and cursing Deut. 28. are answered MR. B. proceeds thus ch 23. The 18th arg is this If infants were churchmembers before ever Circumcision was instituted then certainly it was not proper to the Jews and consequently not ceased according to Mr. T. his own Doctrine But infants were churchmembers before Circumcision was instituted therefore it was not proper to the Jews nor is ceased Here at our Dispute Mr. T. seemed to yeeld all if I would prove infants were churchmembers before Circumcision Ans. So far as I can discern by my memory and such notes I have of the Dispute this was my concession That if Mr. B. would prove admission of infants as churchmembers before Circumcision I should yeeld to what he averred that the law and ordinance of infants as visible churchmembers was not repealed Yet I confess by reason of Mr. Bs. quickness of speech his unheeded altering terms using often visible churchmembers for admission as visible churchmembers which in that time in the conflict of Dispute I did not always take notice of or through weariness mention it not to be unlikely I did say as Mr. B. saith I did However by my writings it appâ—ars this is and was my constant judgement that infants were visible members of no Church but that of the Hebrews nor such till by Gods call of Abraham and his house they were taken to be his separated people and that infants were not admitted visible churchmenbers nor any law of admission till that of Circumcision Gen. 17. Mr. B. adds But in his Sermon since among much of the same stuff he made the poor deluded people believe I mean those that will believe him that by infants being churchmembers I mean nothing else but that they suck of the brests of godly parents and are brought up in the family of godly parents just as in our Dispute he would have faced me down before thousands of people that by churchmembership I meant nothing but Circumcision I told him I did not and he told the people still that I did Is it any intemperance or harshness upon such dealings to say that it is sad that I will not say eminent holiness but a very little tenderness of conscience and fear of God and love of truth or charity to a brother yea or common modesty should not restrain this but that Mr. T. durst first take on him to search the heart and know a mans thoughts to be contrary to his prâ—fession secondly and contrary to the plain sense of his terms of speech thirdly and perswades multitudes of people that it is so What hope can I have that ever Mr. T. should be brought to the truth when he hath not ability enough to understand what is the meaning of a member of the visible Church and that after I had so fully told him I was long before I could get him to confess that Circumcision and Churchmembership were two things and separable till I gave him instance in women Answ. 1. In the Dispute I confess I did conceive that Mr. B. could mean nothing but the command of Circumcision by his ordinance of infants visible churchmembership not imagining that he should magnifie such a toy as he hath in his Letter to me devised from Gen. 1.26 27. 3.15 c. which and not defect of truth tenderness of conscience modesty or charity in all which whether of us be defective the Lord will judge made me so confident he did mean as I then said 2. But that I ever said in my Sermon that by infants being churchmembers he meant nothing else but that they suck the brests of godly parents and are brought in the family of godly parents I do not yet believe This I might and I think did say and do say it again That I knew no sign whereby infants are visible churchmembers except those be signs which are mentioned 3. That I was long in yeelding the separation of Circumcision and visible churchmembership it was because I conceived that he meant infants of oâ—her people besides the circumcised were visible churchmembers but when I found he meant that they were distinct and separable in the people of the Jews I yeelded it He proceeds thus And now must I be fain to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking the brest of a godly woman nor being brought in the family What a hard word is this Churchmember when I know not possibly how to speak it plainer Why Sir where is the difficulty Is it in the word Church I suppose we are agreed what a Church visible is at least you understand it Or is it in the term member why do you not know what a member is How understand you Pauls discourse about the members and body Do you understand what is totum aggregatum pars totius Do yoâ— understand what it is to be a member
Circumcision to prove noâ— the duety yet the lawfulness of infanâ— Baptism 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte was a burnt offering of a beast or two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons both of them for a burnt offering so Maimonides tit Isuri â—iâ— c. 13. as Ainsworth annot on Gen. 17.12 Selden de syned l. 1. c. 3. â—ite him but that is not prayer nor is it any more agreeable to the Jewish custome to use prayer without it then to use circumcision of the heart Col. 2.11 without the outward or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed if time did not suffer it to be done without so much as saying the Lords Prayer The Dr. adds So parallel to the Court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not onely the whole Church in the presence of whom â—tis publikely administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselâ—es formerly baptized do represent the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated and been taken for currant Baptism and the terming the Governours of the Church the Church be language not like the Scripture but the Canon law and the use of Gossips be a vain device and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ that they are not fit to bee among Christians nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling but as sureties or proxies to the child and in private Baptism there 's none of these sometimes yet were all the Dr. saith yeilded this is not according to the Jewish custome which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voâ—d and so as Judges of the Baptism of which sort the other are not The Dr. adds But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter as far as I am concerned in it unless it bee to tell him that the Bishopâ— Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yeild all authority so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bâ—ar perfect accordancâ— therewith in this particular of infant Baptism though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselvs and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifiâ— it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Drs. own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Answ. 1. To call Cyprian Augustine c. Fathers of the Church which is elsewhere stiled their mother is scarce consistent 2. To yeeld all authority to the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason this is due onely to the holy Scripture they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise which was not so they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports this would be an inlet to many superstitions the Canons of Councils and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes as that they would be counted most useless writings â—o direct in faith or worship did not their age make some men dote on them Tâ—at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed privat baptism in the use of sureties their mimical or fals answers saying they desire to be baptized when it is not so The Drs. exposition Letter of resol q 4 § 116. I believe i. e. this child stands bound by by thâ—se presents to believe c. is so ridiculous and Augustines tom 2. Ep. 28 ad â—oniâ—acium is like it as that did not prejudice oâ— preingagemâ—nt or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action doth not justifie his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which hee makes the paâ—tern as hee pleaseth or the Bishops Canons order let the Reader juâ—ge by what is said and that which followes Of this score saith he 't is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism in the name of the Father and the â—on and the Holy Ghost In â—his one thing saith he which Christ did noâ— prescribe nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used In reply to this I shall not sâ—end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription if the express words aâ— his parting from the world Matth. 28. â—o ye theâ—â—fore and â—ach or receive â—o discipleshâ—p all naâ—â—ons baptizing them in the nâ—me of the Father and the Son and the Holy â—host be not a prescription oâ— Christs and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times be not testimâ—ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it 〈◊〉 and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Sâ—rapion tom p. 204. He that is noâ— baptized into the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no Baptism perâ—â—â— iâ— seems but that And if â—his will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can prodâ—ce â—o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the univâ—rsal Church of God through all agâ—â— or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infanâ—s Answ What grounds we can produce â—rom Christ and Apostles for denying infant Baptâ—sm may be seâ—n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review
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