were a Sabbath yet this proves not that freeing servants then is any more said to be ceased then infants visible Churchmembership 2. Saiâ—h he The dedication of the first-born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him Of both these many Scriptures are plain But let it be proved that the admitting of infants into the visible Church is a meer type or a meer judicial law proper to the Jewish Common-wealth any more then the admitting of men or women into the Church I reply 1. Admitting of infants into the visible Church was no other then by their circumcising or presenting at the Temple and these are ceased as proper to the Jewish Church or Commonwealth 2. A thing may cease though we cannot prove it a meer type nor a meer judicial law as the receiving tythes and paying them and things may remain though they were tâ—pes as mount Sion the land of Canaan the people of Israel whâ—ch were types Heb. 12.22 Gal. 6.6 c. 3. That the Jewish infant Churchmembership was not by a law but by a fact of providence which took in the whole people of the Jews into the Church visible Jewish and consequently the infants as part of that people which by the breaking off that people and taking into the Church onely believers is now ceased as is shewed before sect 50 51 52 64. What Mr. B. adds If all Nations should have become Churchmembers thâ—y should have been circumcised and then it had not been peculiar to the Jews and that Sichemites being circumcised would not have been subjeâ—t to Jacob and that when in Esthers time the people of the land became Jews they were not of the Jewish Commonwealth and under their Civil government is answered before sect 54. That which he saith p. 108. That he hath sufficiently proved that infants ought to be admitted visible Churchmembers hath so little truth that if the Reader observe it he shall find scaâ—ce any of his arguments so much as to conclude the admission of infants into the visible Church much less to prove it but that they are visible Churchmembers Whereby it is evident now which I could not observe in the Dispute that Mr. B. did leave the point to be proved that infants ought to be admitted visible Churchmembers and prosecuted another point instead of it that they are visible Churchmembers But enough is done in answer to that also which I pray the Lord to bless for the undeceiving of the people of these nations who have been so shamefully misled by Mr. Bs. toy of an ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed no where extant that were they not either willing to be deceived oâ— left to errour by God for their want of love to the truth they could hardly have been deluded by such vain arguing as he hath vented SECT LXXV My Arguments to prove the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 to be into the invisible Church by giving faith are vindicated from Mr. Bls. exceptions Vind. â—aed chap. 38. and Mr. Sidenham's Exercit. chap. 8 9. ALthough Mr. Bls. manner of disputing hath been shewed to bee such as requires not any full answer and would learned men compare as men that sought truth mine and his writings together they would perceive the insufficiency of his reply yet because I perceive some learned men do yet value his writings without good reason which oppose mine I shall add somewhat more to shew how short his writings are of weakening any thing of mine Vindic. â—aed ch â—8 sect 1. Having made an analasis of part of Rom. 11. from v. 16. he takes on him to ground several undeniable positions The third is the root of this tree viz. the first supreme universal root is Abraham Isaac and Jacob not Abraham alone so Ishmaelites would bee of the body Nor Abraham with Isaac alone so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in But the Apostle in this Chapter from Old Testament authority excludes both of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob are therefore joyntly the root Answ. 1. That Abraham onely is the root meant Rom. 11.16 17 18. I prove from Rom. 4.11 12 16. where Abraham onely and no other of the Patriarchs is termed the Father of believers But to bee the root Rom. 11.16 17 18. is all one with the Father of believers That the root notes a Father Mr. Bl yeilds that it notes not barely a natural father is proved in that the Gentiles should not be in that root if it notâ—d barely a natural father and that believers onely are branches of that root is proved from the text 1. In that their standing is by faith 2. That by unbelief some were broken off vers 20. which do plainly prove that they who were branches were believers who were unbelievers were not branches 3. That the partaking of the root could bee no otherwise then by faith nor any other way ingraffing can bee meant is manifest in that the Gentiles who had no other relation to Abraham as a father then by believing as hee did partake of the root and are ingraffed into the Olive Secondly To Master Bls. Argument I answer by denying that the Apostle doth in that Chapter or any other exclude the Ismaelites or Edomites from the body Job and other believing Edomites were in the root and Olive Yea if it were meant of the visible Church and natural descent Ishmael and Esau must be of the body who were of Abraham by natural descent and circumcised and so visible Churchmembers If Mr. Bl. deny they were in the body because they were not of Abraham Isaac and Jacob by this reason Isaac and Jacob should be excluded For they were not from Abraham Isaac and Jacob they were not from themselves and yet were branches and consequently they were not the root but Abraham alone the root noting such a Father as from whom all branches have descent His fifth position is the fatness of this tree is the glory of ordinances of which the whole Church partakes Answ. By ordinances hee means outward ordinances as Baptism the Lords Supper preaching the word c. By the whole Church hee means the Church visible For that is his tenet all along that the olive tree is the Church visible not the invâ—sible This is then Mr. Bls. position that when it is said Rom. 11.17 and wast partaker together of the root and fatness of the olive tree the meaning is thou Gentile Church or believer art made partaker of outward ordinances of which the whole Church partakes Now under the whole visible Church he undoubtedly comprehends infants and sure there is no ordinance of which infants are partakers according to Mr. Bls. tenet but Baptism so that then the Apostle according to Mr. Bls. exposition should mean no more by the fatness of the tree of which the whole Church partakes but Baptism Which is of it self so manifestly frivolous an exposition as that I shall not need of set purpose to refute it Though it is true there is a
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
it is of Divine institution or the form of a particular Church eiâ—her in respâ—ct of its truâ—h or purity much less that it is a condition of interest in the covenant of grace as if the promises thereof were mâ—de under that condition But I conceive this speech of Mr. C. heâ—e together wiâ—h â—hat other excepted against mâ— by me in the first part of this Review pag. 92 are very dangerous I go on Again saith Mr. C. That Covenant of grace is considered either in it self or its administration to which purpose Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17 11 12 13 partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Ier. 13.11 Isai. 24. Zach. â—1 10 hath reference to the covenant of grace both as invested with the Church covenant and in respect of Church administration thereof Answer The administration of the covenant of grace is to me no way intelligible but thus that by it is meant the administring the promise it self which I know not how it should not be done but by making or writing or some other way representing or recording it or the things promised in the covenant of grace to wit justification c. which may be done either by Divine authority power conferring or bestowing and this none can do but the eternal Father Son and Spirit or by way of signification revelation or assurance of them so I confess the preaching of the Gospel and in some sense the Sacraments as they are called may be termed Church-administrations of the covenant of grace But this seems not to be Mr. C. his meaning for he saith Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17.11 12 13. partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Which words are an inâ—pt tautology if to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it be not somewhat beyond being a sign and a seal of it and sith circumcision is said to be both circumcision must not onely sign and seal the covenant of grace but must be the administration of it which how it should do but by conferring the grace of it I know not If it be that way it must do it either ex opere operato or ex opere operantis if this later way then how do infants receive grace by it who believe not nor do any other act pre-required if the former it is the same with the tenent of Popish Doctors And for the text Gen 17.11 12 13. his own words pag. 43. refuâ—e him when he sâ—iâ—h Every one that haâ—h read Catecheticall doctrine will say that when in one verse it 's said of Circumcision in their flesh that it was his covenant in their flesh It is an usuâ—ll Metonymy in speaking of Sacraments to call the outword sacramenntall sign and seal by the name of the thing signified and scaled pag 44. Circumcision is bâ—t a branch of the covenant or condition of the covenant on their part As for the texâ— Jer. 13.11 there 's not a word of ciâ—cumcision in 〈◊〉 onely it is said that God had caused to cleave to him the whole house of Israel as the girdle cleavâ—th to the â—yns of a man but to refer this to circumcision is frivolous God had by his Covenant Providence and actings for them in wonderfull maâ—er made them to cleave to hiâ— That â—hey might be unto him for a people as iâ— follows in the vâ—rse In the other text Isai. 24 5 it is said the Iews had broken the everlasting covenant which if it be undâ—rstood of the covenant of grace then may it be brâ—ken aâ—d persons may faâ—l from grace if of circumcision as Mr. C. seems to undâ—rstand it then it is no more but they had uncircumcised â—hemselves which were both faâ—se for at that time and after even unto this day â—he Iewes keep the ordinance of circumcisioon very strictly â—nd frivolâ—s as if this hâ—d been the great maâ—ter for which the earth mourned did fade away languished was utterly emptied and spoiled But â—the covenant here is meant of the covenant of â—he Law a 〈…〉 which was everlasting that is to continue as long as their pâ—â—iâ—y stood Exod 24.7 8. as Exâ—n 27 21 12.24 28.43 2 Chron. 6.2.2 7.16 the word for ever is used for a long time or the continuance of the Iewish Sâ—ate So Jer 11 3 4 Jer 31 32 they are accused to break the covenant at mâ—unâ— Sinai by disobedience chiefly by idolatry and therefore neither of the Tâ—xâ—s yeild any thing to prove circumcision to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it That Gods breaking of his Covenant Zach 11.10 hath no reference to the Covenant of grace either as invested wiâ—â— Church-covenant or Church-administration thereof is shewed above Sect 25 in the right administration of it The distinction he makes of being in the Covenant intentionally and 〈◊〉 I allow nor do I deny the distinction oâ— being in Covenant internally and savingly and onely externally in respect of men though I find not Ishmael any where said to be in the Covenant and the promises Rom. 9.4 are meant of the peculiar promises to the nation of Israel by the Covenants are meant the tables of the Covenant as Beza in his Annot. on that place however all there said is meant of the Israelites only as is shewed before Sect. 29. and therefore this place makes nothing for Christian Gentile professors being externally in the Covenant of grace as Mr. C. imagines Nor do I know any Text in the Scripture wherein that phrase is used of being in Covenant or having the Covenant belong to them externally only The distinction of being in Covenant externally in their own or their parents right hath no proof in the new Testament however it have in the old The seed of Abraham by proportion is a new invented sort of Abrahams seed no where Proselytes of old not true believers in their Generations and were visible inchurched beleivers in their Generations scil parents children together are terms Abrahams seed in Scriptue That Deut. 29 14. notes the sorts of persons not the individuats cannot be true for him that is here and him that is not here note individual persons distinguished according to their present and future existence That Gen. 17 7. is meant of a Church seed indefinite or by proportion is said not proved by Mr. C. and denied by me I pass on to his Conclusions Sect. 2. I grant the first conclusion according to the explication I give in my Exercit. Pag. 2. in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. that the Covenant Gen. 17 7 was a Covenant â—f grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace nâ—w hâ—ld â—orth to us But Mr. C. hath a further meaning to wit that the Covenant as it is a Covenant of
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
view his proofs First saith he Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israeâ—ites priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine â—n number Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant tâ— be of Gods adopted seed under the promises Answ. He might more truely have said here sure is nothing as it was printed to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be of Gods adâ—pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it contained Gospel grace The priviledges could not be oâ— all that according to the flesh were Israelites for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come now were all if any of them priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times but at some times And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls purpose yea this Scripture and that whâ—ch followes put together are an antithesis to his thesis Secondly saith he Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant Answ. The conclusion is granted the natural issue of Abrâ—ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages but those broken off were never in the Covenant of grace Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons but in which their progenitors were nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him but never by right of birth It is false if meant of casting off from being his people as it is meant Rom. 11.1 2 that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people understanding it in their own persons But of this text and this argument more hath been said in the first part of this Review and more will be if the Lord permit in that which follows Thirdly saith he Matth. 8.11 12. whence he thus argues Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome onely upon an inâ—erest of Birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome onely on an interest of birth Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position for if it bee as he here saith thaâ— they were not children of the Kingdome though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7 wherein God saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 17 18 c. expounds it then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripâ—ure they can be taken therefore this argument overthrowes his own positiâ—n 3. If by being in the Kingdome be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish the conclusion is granted but withal it is proved from the same text that they were never in the visible Church Christian but were opposite to it in that they embraced not the Christian Faith but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ and so had no right to baptism though they had circumcision and did eat the passeover 4 It is manifest from the text and agreed upon by interpreters that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down for it is said v. 1 1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onely nor had being in it for the fruition of â—he priviledges of ordinances but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven ergo 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth is the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaâ—en and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances ergo 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews who contemned the Gentiles Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors in the best highest and happiest place and condition 4. Exâ—ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the priviâ—edges of ordinances such as Câ—rcumcision the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper for some of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob did never partake of nor ever shall nor may the Gentiles with them partake of circumcision and the passeover for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers which had been to establish Judaiâ—m contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls
studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
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
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.
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
from a vine or olive Answ. 1. They may be said to be broken off who were never taken in in their own persons sure the abortives and stil-born were never taken into the visible Church of the Jews and yet if other infants were broken off so were they and if they were broken off though they were never taken in in their own persons but their ancestors then the infants of infidel Edomites might be said to be broken off who were in Esau Isaac and Abraham taken in But they were not positive unbelievers therefore other then positive unbelievers are broken off which opposeth Mr. B. 2. If infants of infidel Edomites be not broken off then according to Mr. B. the ordinance of visible Churchmembership is not in respect of them revoked and repealed and consequently they are visible Churchmembers according to the tenour of Mr. Bs. arguing 3. If God will not punish the children for the fathers sins as Mr. B. saiâ—h much less for a strangers then he would not break off the unbelieving Jews infant children then they are visible Churchmembers if Mr. Bs. arg hold 4. Mr. Bls. reason is answered before by shewing how there may be privations of habits not in being And if his reason were good and unbelieving Jews infant could not be broken off for that it was never in the visible Church Christian and is the branch of a bramble To my words that the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible churchmembership but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church M. Bl. replies 1. By demand Is there any such decree as to cast out of the Church invisible I am sure that chapter hath no such thing Answ. There is a decree of breaking off from the Church invisible and that decree is plainly exprest in that chapter v. 7 8 9 10. For what comes to pass in time that God decrees But they were broken off in time from the invisible Church of believers v. 7 8 9 10 15 17 19 22. 2 ly Saith he I demand did they continue in the Church visible when upon execution of such a decree they were cast out of the Church invisible or was their station in the visible Church lost and that of the invisible Church never gained and therefore they were not broken off from it Answ. They continued in the visible Church Jewish in opposition to the visible Church Christian which they persecuted when they were cast away and broken off from the Church invisible of true believers according to Gods decree of reprobation though they never gained a station in the invisible Church in their own persons Mr. Bl. adds 3 ly The Jews adhering to circumcision c. though God changed the rites Moses gave them refused the way of God rejected the counsel of God in not being baptised doting upon elements beggerly and so their eys are held that they see nothing into glorious Gospel mysteries And this their unbelief is their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood upon which account they are kept out from interest in the Church invisible And when this blindness shall be removed they shall then be saved Answ. Their unbelief was the means of their breaking off but not of their breaking off from that visible Church-station in which they sometimes stood the visible Church-station in which they stood is as Mr. Bl. himself describes it their station in the Jewish Church visible in the way of Church ordinances Circumcision Sacrifices c. changed by God yet as he himself faith the Jews stuck thereto and therefore stood still in their former visible Church-station Besides their unbelief was not their breaking off from it For 1. as Mr. Bl. said before the breaking off was Gods act so was not their unbelief 2. According to Mr. Bl. breaking off was Gods act of punishment but it was no punishment but a merâ— to be broken off from that visible Church station Nor upon the account of their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood were they kept out from interest in the Church invisible but for their unbelief and their keeping that Church station However if they were kept out from interest in the Church invisible their breaking off is more then depriving of a visible Churchstate yâ—a the same which I assert a breaking off from the invisible Church If there be any mazes in my 8th and 9th sections of the first part of my Review Mr. B. led me into them whom I was necessitated to follow Mr. Bs. arguments are answered without confusion and with so much strength as neither Mr. Bl. nor Mr. B. are able to refute Mr. Bl. asserts contrary to me that the Christian visible Church and the Jewish are one and the same 1. because Japhet dwels in Shems Tents which are the Church visible and this he saith needs no proof But I require proof that by Shems tents are meant Gen. 9.27 the visible Church Jewish or Christian. 2. Because they are one sheep-fold Joh. 10.16 and to the objection that it 's meant of the invisible Church because Christ gives notes of those that were indeed his sheep he saith Christ speaks to those that were Disciples onely according to profession and gives notes Joh. 8.31 of Disciples indeed and it is against all reason that Christ should in discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative This and that to those that were malignant enough in the Church visible the Pharisees as appears in the close of the former Chapter And the mention of thieves creeping into it hirelings employed in it doth contradict it The visible Church of the Jews and Gentiles in which Christ hath true sheep for whom he dies and others that thieves and hirelings do deceive makes up one sheep-fold Answ. The Text rather proves the contrary as Mr. Bl. expounds it For if the fold be the visible Church and the other sheep are not of that visible Church then there is not one fold or Church of Jews and Gentiles but some sheep are of one fold or visible Church and some of another As for Mr. Bls. arguments they are of no force For Christ might well enough in his discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative this it being usual to point out invisible things by it as Joh. 6.29 c. This God is our God And yet I do not think this fold John 10.16 notes the invisible Church but the people or nation of the Jews as Piscator Grotius c. expound it or rather the place For the fold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes not the sheep and therefore not the Church but the place or country where or whence they are Nor were deceivers hirelings thieves or wolves in or of the Church meant Joh. 10.15 16. though they might get into the place and company of them Nor is it truly translated by our Translatours there shall be one fold
rest and is a departing from the living God Heb. â— 12 in tanto though not in toto In which speeches as there is much mistake and wrong interpretation of the Text which speaks not of such a week day rest or the house of God in the second capacity as he terms it or of entrance into his rest as his house in that capacity so that speech is very dangerous Now this entrance into his rest as his house in this second capacity is that which the Apostle chiefly speaketh to here when he saith Take heed brethren of an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God And that in case the people of his pasture and sheep of his hand even his own children will not hear his voyce but forsake his worship refusing his offer in this Gospel rest as they did in Canaan rest he will also swear against them as he did against these that they shall not enter into his rest Which if true then they that are not convinced of the weekly Christian Sabbath as many godly and learned Divines in forreign parts and in these Nations are not those who do not on that day joyn in the publike and solemn worship as prayer preaching breaking bread and that too in a particular gathered Congregation as Seâ—kers and many other persons whereof we cannot but judge many of them to be godly these are chiefly meant by the Apostle as those that have an evil heart of unbelief depart from the living God God will swear they shall not enter into his rest Nor will the limitation in tanto help to free his speech from those horrid consequences which it is liable to if it be true which he saith that the Apostle chiefly speaketh to that entrance in his rest as his house in the second capacity Heb. 3.12 and to expound Gods swearing that they should not enâ—er into his rest in that sense if they did not hear his voyce inviting to keep the Sabbath makes the speech inept thus If ye will not keep the Sabbath I swear ye shall not keep the Sabbath Nor do I conceive what he saith p. 34. is right that Christ gave his Saints the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven Matth. 16.18 and from that gift to Peter the Saints do claim their Church power each according to their place and station in the Church for they have it as Peters that is as stones in that building or if you will as confessours which makes them to be stones in the house of God For neither by the Keys is meant all Church power nor are the Keys given to the Saints much less to them as stones or confessours though such things are supposed oft times but not proved But I hasten to the view of what follows being the chief thing Mr. C. infers his infant Baptism from SECT LXXVIII Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16 17 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents is refuted THat which is Mr. Cs. basis for his fabrick of Infant-Baptism is from the Covenant of God with Abraham Gen 22.16 17 18. which he saith contains four things 1. That God would bless Abraham and with him all believers with all spiritual blessings in Christ Rom. 9.7 Gal. 3.16 8 9 29. and this agrees with Gen. 3.15 Which I yeeld Secondly saith he more particularly in Gods promise to Abraham is contained something peculiar unto him and which believers are to claim particularly from his promise made to Abraham as namely in the second place that God would not onely bless Abraham and in him all believers but also would make them blessings and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to Nations Gen. 12.1 2 3. So Gen. 18.18 This promise Peter alledgeth and explaineth to the Jews Act. 3 25. The word is all the families of the earth The same word we have Ephes. 3.15 The Covenant maâ—e with Abâ—aham therefore as by this place we see that we have it in that of Gen. 12.1 where it was first made and given so also that it respecteth families and posterity else he had said all the bâ—lievers or all the people of the earth not all the families of the earth shall be blessed And he could not have said to the Jews ye are the children of the Covenant had it not respected the children of the pâ—ople of God Nor is it to be restrained onely to the Jews for the promise is concerning all the famiâ—ies of the earth therefore it followeth in the next words v. 26. unto you first And this blessing as it is first laid down Gen. 12. and here repeated by the Apostle we see is a blessing both upon the people of God themselves and upon their families Nor is this promise to be restrained onely unto this that of Abraham and his seed should Christ come although that also be included because what we receive from Abraham we have it all in Christ for so all those of the line of Christ were blessings to the world as well as he And because here is something intended applicable to all believers namely that they also shall be blessings in their generations and because a blessing upon families is intended also for so the words run thou shalt be a blessing and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed therefore I say it must not be so restrained But the meaning is that in his Covenant with Abraham he hath thus far limited himself and discovered his mind and purpose that his choice shall not be proportionâ—bly all over the world alike but that it shall be by families and nations so as he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together and not by eqâ—al numbers in each part of the world alike Had not his election been so limited to families and nations neither Abraham nor believers could have been said to be blessings in spiritual things either to their families or to any other where they live as now they are because God so blesseth onely his elect Ephes 1.3 4. Answ. The sum of this I conceive to be that God promising to Abraham he should be a blessing Gen. 12 2. that in him all the families of the earth Gen. 12.3 all the nations of the earth Gen. 18.18 shall be blessed in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed Gen. 22.18 did promise that every believer should be a blessing in his generation in spiritual things to his family and neighbourhood and thereby God haâ—h limited himself to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together and not by equal numbers in each part of the world alike Which exposition is many wayes faulty and the conclusion inferred from it either false or uncertain and yet if it were true and certain would not yeeld
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâ—spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future yet he were not to be baptized till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple For if so than if God did reveal concerning any as he did of Isaac and Jacob that he were a child of the promise though yet unborn in the Mothers womb he were to be baptized which is absurd None are to be baptized afore born therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism much less such an uncertain doubtful guess called charitable presumption that he is in the Covenant as is without any particular declaration of Scripture or other revelation from God concerning the person or any shew of his that he is Gods child which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize nor is his reason of any force for we might in like manner say They have the election of God which is the greater who can inhibit the sign which is the less It is not whether that which they have is greater much less that which is conjectured or hoped they have which is the rule to baptize but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major Besides saith he we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed whom God had thereby separated then to be his church and evidenced it by an outward seal there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation whereby men were externally separated from the world that circumcision was called the covenant and the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision To which I answer letting pass his Phraseology this reason goes upon these suppositions 1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed and separated them to be his Church and evidenced it by Circumcision and that the seal did follow the Covenant when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace which sense alone serves his turn it is not true Ishmael was circumcised yet the Covenant not administred to him nor he separated to be of his Church not this evidenced by an outward seal but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. and he in the event cast out and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made and not imparted to them to whom it did belong as v. g to the females nor were the Prosâ—lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant which are all one Gen. 17.10 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham and God would perform it 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision But for proof of that there 's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place M. G. goes on thus Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away for what though as you say the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant but had some external additaments yet a Gospel covenant it was and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached before to Abraham and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration so is baptism under the Christian administration neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises For godliness even under the Gosspel hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant as there was of circumcising infants because of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away He tells his Reader That I say the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant but had some external additaments But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant but integral parts the covenant being nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 c. And for what he saith That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions And whereas he saith The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8 be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed but that Gent 12.3 and the term substance be ambiguous yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth is the same in substance meaning by it the intent purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost though not in words or expressions yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same For the promise according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil
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
called And herein is the difference between them and those afar off the Gentiles it is to the Jews actually to the Gentiles de praesenti onely intentionally till they be called of God which he understands not of an effectual saving call but calling into visible covenant and church-estate and then it belongs to their children as to the Jewes This I gather to be his meaning out of scattered passages Sect. 4 5 7. I shall 1. observe some things concerning the exposition in general 2. Clear my own exposition from objections 3. Make some animadversions on several passages in the latter Sections of this ch of Master Cobbet I observe that he brings no proof but his own saying that the promise is that Gen. 17.7 or that it belongs to any in external right or administration or that the Apostle meant the belonging of the promise to them in respect of external right and administration For to say it is the promise to which baptism seals is to prove an unknown thing by a more unknown sith baptism neither there nor elsewhere is termed the seal of the promise or covenant nor doth the Apostle mention baptism as sealing or administring the promise nor do I understand that there is any such thing as an external right and administration of the promise or by vertue of the promise but by vertue of the command And therefore I judge all this talk to be a parcel of gibberish which the Scripture yields no hint of but Paedobaptists have formed it from those leading errors that the nature of Sacraments is to be Seals of the covenant that the reason of a person being circumcised was interest in the covenant Gen. 17.7 that there is the same reason of baptism as of circumcision Besides I would know to what the right is and of what the administration is which he cals external and in what sense it is called external External he seems to make all one with quoad homines in foro Ecclesiae and the promise is of remission of sins the sense then is you have a right and administration of remission of sins in respect of men and in the Court of the Church A right is a title to a thing which a man may claim an administration is a serving or bringing in as when a Deacon gives money to the poor Gâ—hazi reacheth water to Elishah If there be sense in Master Cobbets exposition this should be the meaning You Jewes who crucified Christ and your children though neither yet believers nor repenting persons have a right and administration of the promise of remission of sins Gen. 17.7 though not in respect of God or the Court of heaven or your own consciences yet before or by men or in the Court of the Church so that you may claim absoluâ—ion from them and they do or ought to administer it to you by a sentence or baptism or some other way Which were to make the Apostles speak non-sense and impious falshood Non-sense the words bearing no such meaning according to the Scripture-use or other approved authors Falshood in that he should tell them they had such a right and administration as they had not and this impious sith it tends to harden them in impenitency and unbelief and to justify Preachers or Churches in an unrighteous sentence wherein remission of sins is pronounced to belong to persons impenitent and unbelieving in sensu composito while such The like may be said if the right be meant to visible Church-membership and baptism and administration of them the speech would be non-sense neither Scripture nor any Author at that time expressing these things by that which Peter spake Acts 2.39 and the speech were false they then having no right or administration of either and it had been impious to say so to them for it had tended to move them to assume that to them and to justify the yielding it to them which had been injuriously and profanely both arrogated and yielded to them Yet further what a ridiculous salve had this been to consciences so tortured with the sense of that most horrid act of killing Christ to tell them the promise of remission of sins was to them in respect of external right and administration before men or in the face of the Church though not before God or in their own consciences or that they had outward right and administration of visible Church-membership and baptism I may use his own words mutatis mutandis Sect. 6. They were not troubled for want of externall right and administration and to tell them of such right and administration was both impertinent and unsatisfactory and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick soules to promise them such things which they might have and yet die in their sins Matth. 7.23 Besides it seems to be a contradiction to say the promise is to you de praesenti in respect of external right and administration and yet you have not jus in re and in like manner to say that the promise is to all afar off de praesenti in respect of external right and administration and yet it belongs not to them actually but intentionaly And whence hath Master Cobbet warrant to say that the promise belongs one way to the Jewes and another way to the Gentiles or that the promise belonged to the Jew and his child in respect of external right and administâ—ation though uncalled Lastly that I not grate any further on this soare where doth Master Cobbet find in Scripture any mention of Gods calling into visible covenant and Church-estate or how can it be true that the Church to which those Jewes who crucifyed Christ joyned containing the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees and High Priests and the people of the Jewes consenting with them was a Gospel-Church visibly interested in the covenant oâ— grace the Subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church and that there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Credat Judaeus apella non ego But of these somewhat in the animadversions following Master Cobbet against my exposition writes further thus 2. They knew already to their cost that Christ indeed was sent amongst them and to be that Jesus or Saviour of his people from their sins Acts 2.36 37. compared with Matth 1.21 And this was cold comfort to them to tell them of that which wounded them unless there be withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come The promise meerly of Christs coming could not comfort them unless also in and by Christ come in the flesh there be some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them for their reviving healing succour and support it was not Christs sending nor his being sent but emission of sins v. 38. wherefore unless the Apostle argue impertinently this may not be excluded but must be one principall thing intended 4. It is that
baptism and that baptism was not administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes but in a distinct company by a select officer to a severed people from that church Nor do I know it to be true that baptism is a church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation administred onely in and by a church of Christ but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administred by one single Minister without the presence or consent of a church of Christ nor do I think baptism was at that time the Jewish ordinance being neither appointed in their law nor by Ministers chosen by them nor by their authority nor according to their direction nor for the setling of their church-discipline or authority but in these and all other respects opposite or distinct from the Jewish church And although I grant the Jewish people or church though Pareus com in locum saith Dominus areae suae h. e. ecclesiae imo totius mundi Christs floor yet from hence it followes not they were Christs visible Church there being other reason why they are called Christs floor because Christ imployed his fanne to wit his preaching among them being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15.8 though they were not Christs visible church that is a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christs time all sorts which John baptized hypocrites or upright ones were interessed in the Jewish church as Christs floor nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11 12. the being in the floor importing onely their position no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby But Master Cobbet goes on Into this Church-fellowship also did Christs own Disciples by that new way of initiation visibly seal persons which were the reformed part of that Jewish church continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish church and their fellowship in the Church-ordinances then dispensed and not separating from the same either gathering into distinct churches or calling to them other ordinary church-officers which yet were not actually given by Christ untill upon his ascension Ephes. 4.8 11 12. Ans. The Disciples of Christ did not visibly seal persons by that new way of initiation into the Jewish Church-fellowship the fellowship they had in the Jewish church was by their birth and circumcision and the law they were under which they submitted to while it was in force and observed such legal ordinances as were appointed them acknowledging the Priests and other Officers of the Jewes according to their place yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jewes and were gathered into a distinct church had Christ and his Apostles and the 70. as their Officers in ordinary afore the ascension of Christ nor is there one jot of Scripture that doth in the least countenance this fond conceit of Master Cobbet that Jewish Church-membership gave title to baptism or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons as he imagins why Peter required of the Jews to whom he said The promise is repentance afore baptism he takes on him to assigne the genuine reasons thus But the reason rather was partly because as was said they were under such offence Ans. He required repentance because they had sinned in crucifying Christ but repentance was not required to take away the offence of the church the Jewes were of nor for the removing of a suspension from the seal For Peter was no Jewish Church-officer neither did any of the Jewish church in way of Discipline deal with those Jewes by any church-act tending to their correction for that sin yea the rulers of the Jewes with the people did generally avow that act as well done nor was any thing more offensive to them then the profession of Christ and repentance for the killing of him But Peter requires repentance as a necessary prerequisite universally to baptism and as the way to remission of sins which their perplexed soules needed Master Cobbet addes And partly because albeit their church were a true Evangelical church yet it was not so pure and perfect but had many gross mixtures both of ceremonial administrations which were now to be laid aside and of most palpably and openly corrupt and rotten members Ans. Neither doth Master Cobbet offer any proof for this his speech neither is there any likelyhood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things sith in none of his speeches he doth take exceptions at their church by reason of them nor had this been a sufficient reason to urge them to repentance afore baptism because though they had covenant and Church-right to baptism yet their right was to be suspended to the seal without repentance because they had gross ceremonial mixtures and openly corrupt members the Jewish church of which they were members being a gospel-church essentially the same with the christian if Master Cobbet say true for if this were a reason the New-Englâ—â—â— Elders do ill to admit godly persons to the seal with them which came from â— Paâ—ish-church in England in which were the like mixtures and corrupt members without like repentance nor doth it appear that those Jewes had any hand in those ceremonial administrations and though they sinned a great sin in crucifying Christ yet it waâ— through ignorance Acts 3.17 In a word were it granted Master Cobbet that Peter did require repentance for any of these reasons yet the argument is no whit infringed thereby that bare interest in the covenant doth not give title to baptism without repentance sith it did not give title to these Jewes even then when notwithstanding their offence and the corruptions in their church yet the promise was asserted to belong to them de praesenti in respect of external right and administration if Master Cobbets exposition hold good which is directly opposite to the requiring of repentance to baptism by reason of a suspension of their right to the seal by reason of offence and corrupt mixtures But let 's hear Master Cobbet a little further And partly saith he because it was now requisite not onely to acknowledg the promised Mâ—ssiah of Abrahams loynes to be he alone which by his bloud should come actually as well as virtually to ratifie the covenant of grace visibly made with them as they did in receiving the seal of circumcision but that they own the Lord Jesus who was crucified by and among them as he which alone did thus which amongst other testimonies baptism witnesseth therefore more was now required of the adult Jews than formerly which yet was not required of their unripe children Ans. I deny not circumcision to have had this use that it might signify that the promised Messiah should come out of Abrahams loynes and I take it as certain that baptism was appointed that thereby the baptized should own the Lord Jesus and witness that he was the Messiah and that
it were made to any mans seed but Abrahams not to every believing Gentile and his natural seed And certainly this difference between the covenant Gen. 17. and the covenant of grace will be much to the purpose to shew the Covenant Gen. 17 not to be to a believing Christian and his seed and that though circumcision of male infants should have its reason barely from the interest of the circumcised in that Covenant yet such a Covenant-interest not belonging to our children who are of the Gentiles cannot be a reason to entitle them to baptism though it should be granted which is not that our baptism succeeds their circumcision and seals the covenant of grace as theirs did that made with Abraham This mixture of the Covenant and the inference thence that Circumcision did not belong to all believers and their children but as in Abrahams family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defence of the Answer to the nine Positions chap. 8. and because their words are apposite to my purpose though otherwise applied by them I shall recite them Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appear first in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many special blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham and his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this sign of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of believing Jews that were to be circumcised and therefore not visible believers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible believers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seal of Baptism is given and therefore as all family-churches but Abrahams being in a new form of a Church were excluded so much more such aâ— are in no visible constituted Church at all In which it is expresly yielded that the Covenant with Abraham was mixt in my sense that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abrahams family that Baptism follows the Christian Church constitution which sure is much different from the Jewish and therefore not the Covenant made with Abraham But Mr. M. seems to be sensible of this and endeavours to pâ—event it in that which follows But saith he the first doth almost recall it wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it did onely contain the Covenant of grace in Christ whereas it is apparent say you out of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporal benefits the multiplying of Abrahams seed possession of Canaan the birth of Isaac besides the spiritual blessings To which I reply I meant so indeed and so I plainly expressed my self that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham and the Covenant made with us lies onely in the manner of administration of the Covenant and not in the Covenant it self The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us Answer By mixt Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity and some spiritual blessings common with him to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles And I say those promises of temporal blessings were of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham that they cannot in any fit sense be called the manner of the administration of the Covenant that the Covenant it self in the substance doth not hold out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us And all these things I thus prove 1. Those promises were of the substance of the Covenant which are in Scripture called the Covenant it self without mention of the spiritual promises but this is true of the promise of the Land of Canaan c. Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 Gen. 26.3 28.3 4 13 14. 1 Chron. 16.15 16 17 18 c. In which places the Text expresly saith God made a Covenant with Abraham and then recites the Covenant that it was to give the Land of the Canaanites c. which were temporal mercies not now promised or performed to us Ergo To deny those promises to be of the substance of the Covenant and to call them administrations which the Scripture calls the Covenant it self so often if it be not to thwart the Scripture sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions God himself so expresly calling the giving of Canaan his Covenant Exod. 5.45.8 refutes this conceit 2. Those promises are of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham which are integral parts of the Covenant But those promises of temporal blessings are integral parts of the Covenant made with Abraham Ergo the major is in it self manifest for the Covenant is nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises and so if a Covenant have any substance in it it must be the integral parts The minor is apparant from the very words Gen. 17.4 c. where God having in general terms told Abraham My Covenant is with thee he expresseth to the 9. verse wherein his Covenant was with him and that is set down in those peculiar blessings to Abrahams natural posterity Verse 6.8 3. The promise of Canaan can be called no other way the administration of the Covenant of grace than in that in the hidden sense under that promise spiritual good was intended to be shadowed But this very thing shews that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abrahams natural posterity and the other onely as an additament or appendix to the promise in its first meaning Now then if the promise of Canaan in the first sense be not of the substance of the Covenant neither is the promise onely implied mysteriously in the more hidden sense which is but an appendix to it of the substance of the Covenant 4. The Covenant made with Abraham holds not out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to Abrahams natural posterity and to us Ergo there is more difference than in the administration The Antecedent is apparant for the promise of the Land of Canaan the birth of Isaac Christ to come of him according to the flesh c. are not made to us Ergo But Mr. M. thinks to prevent this by telling us Godliness having all the promises both of this life and that which is to
reason thus None but these who are Christ 's are Abraham 's seed and none are Chiist 's but real believers and therefore none but they must be baptized For though it is true that before God none have right to Baptism but such yet sith the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer onely in profession whom he takes to be a believer in reality If any say Baptism knows no flesh the meaning likely is that Baptism is not alotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary sith I do not assert that none but Abrahams seed may be baptized Nor is it true that we have the same ground of charity to act on infants of believers as on grown men For though infants may be Christs yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christs which we have of grown persons whose words and actions shew that the Spirit of God dwels in them Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14 to account the children to be holy as visible professours are for the parents faith but to be legitimate from the lawfulness of their generation Nor can it be proved that any one infant of the most godly person is taken into the same Covenant with the parent nor doth Christ 's respect to infants when brought to him give warrant to any to judg better of a believers infant than of a visible professour or to account of such an infant as baptizable Nor is it true that a general Scripture-assertion and the ground of an indefinite promise is more than all our Reasons to judg a visible Professour Christ 's or Abraham 's seed or a subject of Baptism sith the words and actions of such a one do shew more of Christs spirit and faith than any speeches of God or promises do of infants now existent and he that baptizeth a visible professor of faith proceedeth uppon certain knowledge according to a certain rule of baptizing Disciples which is more to assure the conscience in the doing the will of God then any Charitable judgement or any probable likelyhood of an infants being Christs or in covenant for the present or certain revelation of the infants election and being in covenant and so will be a believer hereafter can be to warrant a man to baptize it at this instant Nor is it true that he that baptizeth a visible professor goes by the purblind eye of his probable judgment For he baptizeth upon an unerring rule of baptizing manifest disciples according to an unerring knowledge that those he baptizeth are such under the Gospel the Jewes are Abrahams fleshly seed though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ no meer Gentile visible professor is Abrahams seed nor any true believers natural seed as such nor doth the covenant make every believer in reallity or any except Abraham much less every visible believer a spiritual Father I confess the spiritual seed of Abraham takes its denomination from the covenant I mean the future seed and from their believing the actual but the natural seed takes not its denomination from the covenant but Abrahams begetting nor is it true the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is renewed in the new Testament with believers and their seed neither formerly nor now are infants of believers non-elect Abrahams seed nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or new Testament either of those alleaged by Master Sidenham or any other I know wherein infants of believers are visibly owned as we own visible professors There will be found visible subjects of baptism though neither infants of believers nor meer visible professors be Abrahams seed I conclude my animadversions on this chapter of Mr. Sidenhams with these considerations that none but elect or true believers of the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham with whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is made nor are persons to be baptized for their interest in that Covenant except it be made manifest by their profession of faith and therefore neither can we say of any infant of a believing Gentile that he is in that covenant nor if we could were it to be baptized till by profession or other waies its faith did manifest it to be a Disciple of Christ. In the 4. chapter Mr. Sidenham tells us of a being in Covenant according to the purpose of election in Gods heart which I allow and of being in Covenant in the face of the visible Church by the persons own visible profession which I deny not but for the other sort of being in covenant with God as in a political moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise to him and his heirs it 's a meer figment there being no such kind of being in Covenant in the time of the new Testament nor doth Mr. Sidenham bring one text of Scripture to prove it and for his reasons they prove it not 1. Saith he If men deny an external as well as internal being in covenant none can administer an external ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings But this reason is nothing to prove a political moral being in covenant without any act of Covenanting by either of the parties in Covenant I deny not but that all the elect are in Covenant with God in his purpose and so infants are in Covenant with God by Gods promise eiher to his son when he gave them to him or at some other time And I grant that visible professors of faith in Christ are in Covenant externally by their own act of covenanting and such may be baptized they being Disciples of Christ. 2. Nor did I ever say that no Ordinance must be administred to these which are not internally in Covenant 3. Nor do I count it any absurdity to say we may set a seal to a blank though I like not the expression in this sense a man may lawfully be baptized to whom God hath not promised to be his God 4. And I have shewed we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant for we hear their profession and see theiâ— actions and their rule by which baptism is to be administred but of infants we have no evidence of their being in covenant by profession of faith according to which we are to be baptized yea we have evidence to the contrary and their being in covenant according to election is uncertain and if it were certain yet till they be actual believers or Disciples of Christ we have no rule to baptize them by nor is there a jot brought by Mr. Sidenham to prove they are in Covenant by their parents faith onely in Gospel times Nor doth any thing Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge that if God made the
senses of his words which I set down might not be conceived to be his meaning and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dictâ—tâ—r rather than an accurate Disputer who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning and so neiâ—her easily examine his proofs nor know what to oppose Bâ—â— he tells me he meant it of a visible priviledge in facie Ecâ—lesiae visibilis yet he doth not tell what that visible priviledge is He tells me That they have their share in Foedus externum but sets not down what share they have nor what he means by Foedus externum in which they have share And after he saith God would have the children of them who by externall vocation and profession joyn to the Church of God even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge wiâ—h them which hath also ambiguity in it For whereas there are many priviledges which the parents enjoy as R. G. to be baptized to be admitted to the Lords Supper perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling or a Deacon in the Church and by Children may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old and while they are children may be understood either during their infancy or during their relation as children to their parents which is as long as they are men the words may be understood either that they have the same priviledge of admission to the Lords Supper or Church-government while they are infants or that they have even in infancy the same priviledge to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession Which last if it were his meanng as most likely it was then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem his argument is an inapt tautology Infants of professors have the same priviledge with the parents to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same by the same yet this I must needs take to be his meaning till he shew what other priviledge wiâ—h their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly which distinction is shewed before Sect. 25 to have no footing in Scripture and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jewes some Abrahams seed according to the promise some onely in the face of the visible Church and of being in Christ by the mysticall union and by visible and externall profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here sith they were not the terms used in his Conclusion He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant the Seal of the Spirit and externall Seals But he neiâ—her shewâ—s where the externall seals as he calls them are tearmed Seals of the Covenant nor was the term Seal of the Covenant at all used in his conclusion Yea to shew how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question and were the predicate in his proposition to wit to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils And this piece of unskilfulness is in that which followeth When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I mean look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quà visiâ—le professor that right hath his child so to be esteemed But first this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon these words were not there They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents but this They are to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion it would not be true For if the right belong to the visible professors quà visible professors the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor For what agrees to any quà talis as such agrees universaliter reciproce and therefore by this expression every visible professor is to be received and esteemed and every one to be so received and esteemed is a visible professor which cannot be said with any truth or shew of truth of the infant child of a believer Besides if this Conclusion were good an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lords Supper sith the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not yet there are outward Church-privileges which belong to them as they are visible professors And to prove this he cites Gen. 6.1 Deut. 14.1 Gal. 3.26 Matth. 8 12. Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 9.3.1 Iohn 8 17. Psal. 147.19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 In answer to which I say â— That I grant this speech to be true 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people namely Deut. 14.1 Matth. 8.12 Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 3.1 Iohn 8.17 Psal. 147 19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood who whether they were called Sons of God by descent or profession or some other way it is uncertain The other Gal. 3.26 is to be understood of being the Sons of God really and the term All is to be limited as v. 27. by ye that are believers as the very words shew For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus it is plain this is meant onely of those who had faith in Christ Iesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not shew a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors Certainly some of them cannot be applied no not to the Infants of the Jewish nation as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God that to them God shewed his word c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us which of these â—or what other outward priviledge it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors which is the onely thing pertinent to the present business After this he asserts That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first pâ—rt of this Review shewed Mr Ms and others mistakes about the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 and proved that it is meant of giving faith according â—o election Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word and do take notice that pag. 110.
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 me to say That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not â—lest Answer My answer is the same now that it was then and having upon occasion of this charge reviewed the notes of the dispute which though very imperfect I have yet by me I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute I answered Mr. B. rightly though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities which having acquitted my self from in my Prâ—cursor Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me And I do think it necessary to tell the world that I find so little of brotherly love to me or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him And though I take him to be a godly man and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer and a slight interpreter of Scripture But to the point Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer 1. That I said That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall To declare my self more fully it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall There is the saving grace of redemption regeneration justification remission of sins adoption glorification The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace that is to the fulfilling of it is either the well using naturall abilities as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration or faith and repentance as foregoing justification remission of sins adoption glorification The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces and the conditions mentioned yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event certain necessary and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall that is that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification remission of sins adoption but on condition of true repentance and faith nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event or left to the persons to whom the promise is made to do by themselves but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished or it may be said to be conditionall that is â—o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall More briefly I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities or that justification remission of sins adoption glorification are promised upon condition of our repentance faith obedience perseverance left by God to be performed by us and not promised as certain in the event which is the Arminian sense yet deny that the promise of justification remission of sins is absolute so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified or have remission of sins without a fore faith which is charged on the Antinomians The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional yet it is all together that is called the Covenant But this speech if it be liable to exception Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost who doth expresly call all together the covenant Heb. 8.10 saying This is the Covenant which I will make and having recited all together he adds v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant And the like is Heb. 10.16 The third thing misliked in my answer is And the leading promise being noâ— conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditional But there is no just cause of excepting against this sith â—t is usuall and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part or chief part as a visible Church is called Holy or of Saints even in Scripture 1 Cor. 1.2 from the better part a field of corn where is much tare Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace though there be other promises than of saving grace and what promise is made of saving grace there is made under the covert of words expressing other things And to shew that there is reason for what I said I urge 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart Heb. 8.10 is not onely the leading promise but also it is the comprehensive promise including or inferring all the rest for therefore God will be a God to them be mercifull to their unrighteousness because he will write his Lawes in their heart to those and those onely he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former Yea it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before but write them in their heart 2. That where Lukeâ— 72 73. he puts it to be in this which I take to be absolute that he would give to us that being delivered from the hand of our enemies without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life v. 73 74 75. The fourth thing misliked in my answer is that I said That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error when he disclaimed this asserâ—ion That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed Defence of his Sermon pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. Pâ—â—dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it 's like will not be convinced by mens sayings let us try what we can do by Arguments 1. The promise of saving benefits is made onely to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed But to elect infants onely they are bestowed Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say that his
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
That the Apostles reasoning Rom. 9.4 6. compared mentions any such Church-seed of Abraham or takes them in as such but onely the elect Mr C. doth falsly charge his adversaries doctrine as denying any interest at all to any believers infants in the covenant I have often granted it to the elect but to none as believers infants Mr Baillee charged me with this thing to which I answered in my Letter to him Sect. 1. our doctrine is as comfortable as theirs when they speak truth It is no Gospel but a dream to affirm what Mr. C. doth of Abrahams fancied Church-seed though it be Gospel to say God will be a God to Abrahams spirituall seed elect and true believers SECT XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing SEct. 5 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the covenant of grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant to guide her in the application thereof Nor is the saving interest of persons in view which is her rule by which she is therin to proceed Concerning which I say that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in Gods covenant of grace but it is sufficient if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism And that M. C. may cease his wonder he who confessed that it 's not to be denied that God would havâ— infants of believers in some sense to be counted his to belong to his Church and Family not to the Divels as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down 〈◊〉 Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seale as he calls it of the covenant of grace which I â—ake to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel not to the Church 2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant which according to the institution is visible discipleship or faith 3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace so as to have right therby to baptism who neither by extraordinary revelation from God nor by any act of his own but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant But let 's examine what he saith because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy is doubtfull Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague Resp. ad Appollon c. Prop 1. seems to hold the negative and cites to that purpose Paraus and Aretius I agree with Mr. C. in his position That personâ— may be baptiâ—ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus were known hypoâ—â—ites when â—hey were bâ—ptized nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth Acts 21.20 c or 22 20 c. or 23 12 13 prove that any of those baptized Acts 2.41 or 4.1 2.3 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul or proved false If Christ did say to Iudas that his body was broken or given fâ—r him and his blood shed it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universall redemption I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper For the Passover it was not administred to Judas by Christ nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant or to belong to a Minister of the seals as they speak It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing slaying dressing and bringing to the Table If the Prist did any thing in it it was at the Temple not at the Table each person was to take himself according to his eating Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael Esau rightly according to Gods command which is the rule in administring ordinances not covenant-inâ—erest But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time to the Church in their families it is said without proof The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead though no Prophet nor Priest Chamier Paustr cath tom 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9 10 saith We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elswhere so that there 's no obstacle but that Zipporah and the woman in the second of Maccabees c. 6. might circumcise So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family is prohibited though no Priests were used Ishmael and Esau and Iudas were not visibly interessed in the covenant being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism or reject from it regularly but by and with the Churches consent is dictated without proof I grant that if particular persons saving interest in Gods covenant and promise of grace were the Rule to baptize by administrators could not observe the rule in faith but doubtingly But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means is therefore the rule to baptize by follows not What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not nor doth Mr C. tell us What he adds I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant I say not meer visibility of faith and repentance is quite besides the Scripture which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant but their visible faith and repentance He tells us The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mens faith and repentance or obedience but of Gods covenant rather the seal is to the covenant even Abrahams circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousness Hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise v. 8. and the word of faith Hence albeit Abraham must walk before God who is now about to enlarge the covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church-reference Gen. 17.1 c. yet the
he to be circumcised and therefore the seal follows not the covenant but the command even where the promise goes before What he adds Else what had become of them if they had died then in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good Rom. 9.6 Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation or about the case of famales or still-born infants Surely he would say God supplies that without means which he bestowes on others by ordinary means and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision To what purpose Rom. 9.6 comes in here I know not This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming To the objection with the Jews the Church and State were the same but not so now Mr. C. thus writes Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order He then kept them severall paling in the Civill State with the Judicials with which the Church as such dealt not but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and word onely in their own Sphears The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers or intruding upon Civil Officers as such as Josh. 9. 16.1 2 Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred 2 Chron. 17.11 Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God the Church was not one body and the State another but all the same persons were of the Church who were members of the Common-wealth he that had the right of a Iew had the right of a Church-member nor were any taken in or cast out of the one but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion but good order was setled kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall or paled in the Civill State with Judicials by which it was divided from the Church In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea as well as between stroak and stroak Deut. 17.8 9. Eli Samuel Iehoiadah judged Israel managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service Nor do I know any such Iudicials but that they did belong to the Church or Priests who were Iudges as well as to the Civill State that is the Princes As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church or Officers of the Church that is Priests and Levits wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word Scandals though we find Princes deposing Priests It is true Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onely in their own Sphears And so had Princes and Souldiers but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew acted Ecclesiastically in their places he mean any other than the Priests and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting the taking cognizance of moral evils and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill I must confess I find not either such Assembly or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord 2 Chro. 19.11 that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct the one in one sort of matters the other in the other As in a Parliament Senate or Council of Lords Bishops Lawyers Souldiers though they sit and act together yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem he instructs them whom they should have there for their help according to the law Deut. 17 8 9 c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum to resolve him in this point What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all serves not Mr C his turn unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace I do not believe What he saith touching Baptism that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts and that it sealeth an infants present federall grace and unto future grace likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally covenant-grace principally is meer fancy without any Scripture which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall of the sealing one grace principally another less principally of sealing an infants present federall grace and unto future grace of baptism sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion That the covenant-interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons SECT XLIV Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25.26 and other places are examined Answ IN my Examen page 51. I said They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not onely to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these add to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed And page 122. It is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace That God wil be
taking in of a person into an Office Army or Family or the like to perform the work enjoy the benefit profit c. of such an Officer Member c. And it is usually done by some Officer to whom that business is committed and the person upon his admission and by vertue of it takes his place work benefit or what else he is admitted to as his right and due But I know no such thing in the baptizing of infants Indeed by Baptism regularly a man is admitted to the Communion of the Church in prayer hearing receiving the Lords Supper and such other acts of Christian Communion as belong to visible Church-members But an infant by Baptism is not admitted to these Prayer and hearing are in some sort allowed to unbaptized persons and they are admitted to them who are infidels when infants baptized are sent away as uncapable of them and disturbers by their crying and playing The Lords Supper they are not admitted to by their Baptism till they themselves profess as Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists agree The being name repute of Churâ—h-members is antecedent to Baptism and therefore they are not admitted to it by Baptism I must confess therefore I do not well know what this admission of infants iâ— which is by Baptism and I think the proposition in Mr. Bs. argument to be void of truth or sense if it be not thus construed All that ought to be admitted visible church-members are baptized or which is all one ordinarily ought to be baptized afore they are admitted unless the admission and baptism be one and the same and then the speech is an inept tautologie as if he had said All visible church members that ought to be baptized ordinarily ought to be baptized So that now Mr. B. may see some reason of my demur about his major proposition which though it were as plain as he well knew how to express himself yet there is so much ambiguity in it that in the sense which the words in any good construction will bear it is to be denied But if he understand it in the later sense the Syllogism is nugatory the minor and the conclusion being the same Nevertheless as in the Dispute I let the major pass so I shall do in this answer onely taking notice of some things in his proof of it and insist upon my denial of the minor The first argument of Mr. B. to prove admission into the visible Church is to be by Baptism I approve and thence conclude against infant Baptism thus If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of admitting any by Baptism as visible members but believerâ— by profession then all that must be admitted visible members ordinarily by Baptism must be believâ—rs by profession But since Baptism was instituted or established we have no precept or example in Scriâ—ture of admitting any aâ— visible members by Baptism but believers by profession Ergo all that must be admitted visible members must be believers by profession I know not what in shew of reason can be said to this For what man yet Mr. B. and Paedobaptists dare dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it from a way that hath full current of both yet they that will admit infants into the visible Church by Baptism do so If he say there 's precept before I answer his own major requires precept or example since Christ ordained Baptism and therefore that shift avoids not the retortion of his argument To what he replies to this argument in his Praefestin morator sect 16. besides what I have said in the 2d part of this Review sect 4. pag. 66.67 there is enough in the same book sect 10 11 12 c. to manifest that infants are not in any Scripture disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28.19 Nevertheless I find Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier de natura Ecclesiae cap. 7. § 4. thus writing Baptismus admittit in Ecclesiam particularem sed in Ecclesiam catholicam potest aliquis admitti sine baptismo quia hanc ad rem sufficit vera fides And whereas Mr. Ball in his reply to the answer of the New-Ergland Elders about the nine positions pag. 60. had said Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof Mr. Allin rejoyns in his Defence pag. 163. Baptism doth not admit actually into the Church and your own expression secrety implieth as much when you say Baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ If baptism be the seal of our admission then there is admission thereunto before baptism but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular congregations â—an any be admitted into a Charch that whole Church being ignorant thereof Fulwood serm of the Church c. p 14. The children of believers born in the Church are not though virtual actual members of the visible Church before Baptism This I produce to shew the uncertainty among Paedobaptists about admission into the Church by baptism and membership before Baptism Like also what Mr. B. saith in his 2d arg To be above ordinances is to be above obedience to God and so Gods And when he saith in his 3d. The nature and end of baptism is to be Christs listing engaging sign it is a good argument to prove that infant baptism hath not the nature and end of baptism â—ith it is not Christs that is according to his appointment listing engaging sign the infant neither lists nor engageth himself by it as Christ appointed And when he saith If it be the use of baptism to engraff and enter us into the body or Church 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ as Rom. 6.3 then sure it must be used at our engraffing and entrance it rather follows it is before sith the means is to be before the end in execution To what he saith about Church-members Disciples Christians enough hath been said in the 2d part of this Review sect 10. c. In his 6th argument having formed an argument from Ephes. 5.26 he saith of me Mr. T. in his Exercit. objecteth 1. That then the thief on the cross c. were no church members Answ. It followes not from he that is baptized shall be saved that therefore he that is not baptized shall not be saved so here for the former speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu it will follow that it is a duty to baptize all members where it may be done but not that it shall certainly come to pass Refut What I said Exercit. pag. 21. of that text Ephes. 5.27 was not an objection against what Mr. B. would evince from the text but in answer to an argument urged for infant baptism from that text by a London Minister in a conference anno 1643. Which
defective in tenderness of conscience fear of God love of truth charity to a brother common modesty after his usual fashion of making out-cries without cause but could not then câ—ear it having not then so well understood his opinion nor his shifting of the terms nor being able to shew it for want of a Notary and time to view his arguments he being also very quick in urging and pressing me to answer without allowing time to weigh his arguments and therefore after much altercation concerning his meaning gave way to his proof of the Law of visible Church-membership unrepealed and neglected to keep him to the proof of the Law of admission unrepealed to mine and the Causes great disadvantage Whether Mr. B. did fraudulently or ignorantly manage the Dispute belongs to God to judge though I must needs say that I did then and do still suspect he was not free from deceit or dolus malus in it finding in a Copy I have of the Dispute That he distinguished then between visible Church membership and admission As for my self had I perceived so clearly as now I do his mind about the kind of visible Church-membership and admission of infants he asserts I should have stuck to this That though infants could have been proved visible Church members according to the Law he pretends unrepealed yet were they not to be admitted by Baptism which is appointed onely for visible Church-members by profession of faith And therefore whereas he saith he contends more for infants visible Church membership then Baptism and makes thaâ— the very heart of the controversie I conceive otherwise and do let him understand that were it not that I know that he hath very much abused me and others in that which follows I should think my tenet not overthrown nor much regard it though his Law of infants visible Church-membership were yeelded and my answer to his arguments omitted But sith things are as they are I resolve to go on The Antecedent saith he hath two parts 1. That by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church This is as far beyond all doubt as you can expect 1. Mr. T. granted it in his publick Dispute and so he doth in his Apology pag. 66. where he saith I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews the infants were reckoned to the Church yet lest any should be so impudent as to deny it I briefly prove it thus 1. If infants were part of them that entred into Covenant with the Lord God and into his Oath that he might stablish them for a people to himself and he might be to them a God then infants were part of the Church But the former is plain in Deut. 29.10 11 12. to any that will read it Therefore infants were part of the Church Answ. What I did I still grant that infants were part of the Jewish Church and were circumcised but the conclusion Mr. B. infers from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not that which Mr. B. should prove For it is not all one to say Infants were part of the Church and by Gods mercifull gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church Nor doth Deut. 29.10 11 12. prove either infants were part of the Church or their admission Their entring into Covenant was not by any act of their own but by the Elders or parents who in like manner Covenanted for the unborn v. 15. who could not thereby be visible Church-members being not then existent and therefore the Covenant there made them not visâ—ble Church-members Nor is there any proof of their admission thence they were admitted either after or before the Covenanting was not their admission for admission is the act of some person that hath that trust or office commited to him but their Covenanting was the pâ—rsons own act and if it did admit the infants then it did admit the parents Elders Captains and so they did admit themselves which is absurd and the establishing them for a people to himself is no more then as Piscator rightly Schol. in Deut. 29.13 That he might require from thee the worship of himself by obedience towards his precepts and so may binde thee to himself So the obligation of the people precedes and he might be to thee a God that is may in like manner promise to thee that he will follow thee with his grace and do thee good and so make thee happy So Gods promise followes It was a Covenant neither to make nor admit them visible Church members but to engage them to obedience and to assure them thereupon of protection and blessing and this extended to their posterity v. 15. who could not be then visible Church-members or admitted then as being not existent 2. Saith Mr. B. If infants were engaged to God by the seal of his Covenant Circumcision then they were members of his Church But some infants were so engaged therefore they were Church members this is all undeniable I never yet met with any that denied either Answ Circumcision is not stiled in Scripture the seal of the Covenant but I grant that infants were members in the Jewish Church visible admitted by Circumcision and engaged thereby though not by their own act yet according to Gods injunction and severe exaction to keep the Law and tâ—is is the onely proof of their admission Mr. B. brings out of the old Testament He adds 3 If infants were part of those that were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea and drank the spiritual drink even of that rock which was Christ then sure they were part of the visible Church But the antecedent is plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. They were all baptized c. Answ. I deny the antecedent to be plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. and have proved the contrary to be true in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 21. whither I refer the Reader 4. Saith he the Martyr Stephen calleth that assembly whereof they were members the Church in the Wilderness Acts 7.38 Therefore they were Church members Answ. The conclusion and proof is granted but I observe that the conclusion to be proved is altered from this by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church into this infants were Church members part of the visible Church The 2d part of his antecedent which he saith is the onely thing I deny and which the whole weight of this argument lieth on is that this merciful gift of God to infants and ordinance of Church membership is not repealed and he saith he hath here the negative and the proof lies not on him yet he will examine my proofs and then prove the negative by a multitude of evident arguments from the Scripture that he hath shewed Scripture not questioned for it and that he may justly expect plain Scripture or argument to prove the repeal of that Law Answ. He hath shewed
parents engaging for themselves and their children sith it appears plainly by Exod. 19.7 8. 24.3 that the Elders of the people onely engaged for the whole Nation And the same I conceive of the Covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. The Covenant Gen. 17. if it were mutual it doth not appear that any other then Abraham himself engaged for his house Nor do I deny such a mutual Covenant if the Lord should enter into it or declare his mind concerning it would make a Nation and consequently infanâ—s Church members But according to the constitution of the Christian visible Church I deny God makes any such Covenant or declares his mind that by such Covenant he will gather his Church Yet were it yeelded that the Covenant made them members of the Church the Propositions are true nevertheless with my explications That all were Church-members that were of that Nation and no more is required to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation And to what he alledgeth I acknowledge that ordinary Proselytes at first admission were not members without their Covenant engaging them and theirs in their power to the observance of the Law of Moses and the sâ—me reason I conceive of hired servants and that thereby they became of that Nation or as the Jewish Doctors say were regenerated and lost their former kindred and became Jews But it was not enough to make them of that Church though they covenanted or professed to take Jeâ—ovah for their onely God except they took on them to observe Moses Law Therefore Cornelius was no visible member of the Jewish Church though he feared God with all his house but was shunned by them Acts 10.28 11.3 as an unclean uncircumcised person of another Nation Nor do I find any proof of that which Mr B. supposeâ—h that all aged persons as servants bought were before they were circumcised â—aused by their Masters interest and authority to enter the Covenant fiâ—st But this doth no whit overthrow the Positions That all were Câ—urch-members that were of that Nation and that no more was reâ—uired to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation Nor is there any more force in what Mr. B. adds 2. And though they were taken into the Church in infancy yet if they afterward forsook or renounced the Covenant they were to be cut off from the Church yea to be put to death 3. And in many cases their children were to be put to death with them And therefore their Chuâ—ch was not so National as that any in the Nation should be a member of it who forsook the Covenant Which I grant For tâ—en they ceased to be of that Nation that is in that policy or Commonwealth de jure at least if not de facto What he adds Indeed God chose the seed of Abraham â—n a special manner but not to be Church members immediately but first to enter into his Covenant and take him for their God and so to be Church memâ—ers is not true For immediately upon their birth the seed of Abraham were Church-members visible though neither they nor their parents or any other entred into Covenant for them and if this speech of Mr. B. were true neither had Jews infants been visible Church members and so not to be circumcised contrary to the command nor according to Mr. Bs. and other Paedobaptists principles our infants visible Church-members nor to be baptized without such entring in to Covenant going before which will nullifie the infant Baptism of many and overthrow the argument from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 produced as sufficient for infant Baptism by most Paedobaptists without any other entring the Covenant 5. Saith Mr. B. You must distinguish betwixt breaking off that particular individual Church or some members of it and the repealing or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church Answ. The breaking off the particular individual Church of the Jews is a term I meet with Rom. 11.20 But the term of repealing or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church is a new term not used that I know of any where but if I may use Dr. Kendals phrase in the Schola illustris of Kederminster A repeal of a Law is an obvious woâ—d but this term of repealinâ— of the species or essential nature of the Church is like the speech of a man doting I have heretofore learned that the essences of things are invariable eternal definitions are of eternal verity conformable to the Idea in Gods mind though existences be mutable and therefore to expect a proof of a repeal or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church is to expect a proof of an impossibility 6. Saith Mr. B. And so you must distinguish betweâ—n the repealing of the Law or grant upon which the very species or nature of the Church is grounded and the execution of the threatning of Law upon particular persons or Churches offending The repeal of the Law or ordinance doth take away all right to the mercy granted by that Law or ordinance even the remote conditional right and that from all men one as well as another to whom that Law gave that right But the punative execution of the threatening doth onely take away the absolute right to the mercy and the right in it and that from none but the particular offenders This punitive execution of the Law or the curse of the Covenant as it is called Deut. 29.20 21. is so far from being a repeal of the Law that it certainly proveth it is not repealed For a repealed Law is of no force and so cannot be executed And upon these two last distinctions I add this for application of them The individual Jewish Church is for the most part broke off and so they that are so broke off are now no Church and consequently have lost thâ—ir priviledges But the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed So the Church of Smyrna Thyatira Laodicea and the rest of Asia for the most part are now unchurched But this is but by a punitive execution of the Law for their sin and no change in the Law or in the nature of the Church And so it is with the Jews also in their unchurching Though they are cast off yet the Law and Nature of Churches is still the same and onely the Laws about ceremonial worship and some other accidents of the Church are repealed So that the casting off of them and their children is no proof that the whole species of infants is cast out of the Church visible Answ. The nature species essential form of the Church is that which is exprest in the definition of it in which Mr. B. himself pag. 82. saith certainly all Divines are agreed that it is a society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c. now a law on which this
of Abraham onely or Moses onely or both or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand I know not except by a call he meaneth circumcising them And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made or entred members 7. And if so whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity or that which was proper to converted proselyted members or some call common to both and what thâ—t was When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered then it may be worth labour to answer him Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise or that a Church could not be without that promise or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan which was as essential to that Covenant as the other they being both but integral parts of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole And for the essence of a Church which consists in the association or union of the members it is not given by a Covenâ—nt of God promising what he will be to them and they to him for the future for that assures them onely of continuance doth not give their present essence but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others and unites or incorporates them together which I call as usually Divines do the Church call agreeably to the Scripture Rom 9.24 25 26. 1 Cor. 1.2 24. c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit and is still the same or outward and was thoâ—gh by various acts of his providence yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith as in the Christian Church when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church But the authority and power of Rulers who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth which was called the congregation or Church of Israel in which the infants were included and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning by my instances which he sets down that the way means or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish For the Christian Church outward call was onely according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ and not by any coercive power of Rulers whereas the Jewish was otherwise Mr. B. proceeds In the mean time briefly thus I answer 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased and so are the ceremonies built thereon 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people If they heartily consent it may be done onely the World is taken into this Covenant with them and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded that exclude not themselves 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease when yet the Church ceased not 4. And for the Ministerial call 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed yet the effect ceased not Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call then what sort is that And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches this is that he drives at God then called by Magistrates but now by Ministers And secondly then he called all the Nation in one day but now he calls heâ—e one and there one Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive that Mr. B. might have understood or rather did understand me well enough that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call which he could learn by my speeches that drive at it But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding what he could not well answer he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain But for what he saiâ—h that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people he therein shews two mistakes 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant as if God could not make a Covenant without it which is false the Covenant Gen. 9.9 10. with Phinehas Numb 25.12 13. with the Rechabites Jer. â—5 19 being without it 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers which implies either the Covenant to be all onâ— with an offer or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent as Mr. B. means But Mr. B. proceeds thus Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words 1. What if all this were true is there the least colour for the consequence from hence It is as good a consequence to say That when God judged Israel by Debora a woman which before was judged by men that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered Oâ— when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer and then another first a man and then a child and then a woman doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered If first a man and then a child and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner or to any imployment or company doth this change the nature of the company or imployment What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministery and a Presbytery another and the people a third is not the Ministerial work and office still the same What if a Magistrate convert one man now and a Minister another and a woman a third doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the
entring them into the Jewish Church by Baptism Circumcision and an Offering and with them wives and children and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law and acting according to rules of their own In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond Now though they were joyned to the Jewish Church one after-another and the infants of the Jews as they were born yet the Jewish-Church whether at the first erection or after estabâ—ishing were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thing I was to demonstrate Mr. B. goes on thus But yet one other argument Mr. T. haâ—h to prove the Church constitution altered and consequently infants now cast out or their church membership repealed And that is this They were to go up three times a year to the Temple they had their Sanedrim and High Priest Now he appealeth to all whether these be not altered And therefore the Church constitution must needs be altered and so infants put out Answ. My argument is this If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered then infants church membership is altered But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logick Where there is the same reason of things there is to be the same judgement De paribus idem est judicium The minor is proved thus The High Priest Sanhedrim repair to their Feasts had the same reason with infants visible church membership But they are altered Ergo. The major is proved thus Infants church membership was no where but in the Jewish Church we read of it no where else nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation which God had made his Church they were visible church members upon no profession of their own nor from any general determination of God Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any countrey whatsoever there being no such Law but meerly from hence because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come and so a National Church till then And for the same reason he would have one High Priest Temple repair thither at solemn Feasts a Sanhedrim their genealogies kept their possessions by lot c. But all these are altered now the Church is not National no one High Priest Temple Sanhedrim c. therefore neither infants visible Church-membership which had the same reason and no other What saith Mr. B. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better arguments are any of these essential to their Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between Priesthood Temple Sanhedrim c. as that the Church must needs fall when they fall may it not be a Church without these Answ. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better answers Is infants church-membership essential to Church constitution How came there to be so strict a conjunction between the Church and their membership as that the Church must needs fall when they fall mayâ—it not be a Church without these If the Temple c. might be altered and and were because noâ— essential to the Church infants Church-membership did cease too which was no more essential then those and which hath been proved to have the same reason with these to wit Gods making his Church National out of which the Messiah was to come Hitherto nothing is indeed answered and what is said is retorted The rest is according to Mr. Bs. vein of frivolous putting impertinent questions to me I would intreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him considerately to answer me to these 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple or Sanhedrim or High Priest or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses Ans. I think not there was no time they were a Church but they had a Priest an Altar Sacrifices distinction of clean and unclean beasts c. Were they not a Church in Aegypt and in the families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob Ans. They were 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church or constitution of the Church Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church or overthrow the old why should the taking of them away overthrow it Ans. Who saith it doth 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants why not after Moses time Ans. Who denies it Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple or Sanedrim or High Priest c. Why may they not be so when these are down why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time yet they were erected upon the same foundation the Jewish National Church as the walls fall with the roof though they rise not together because they rest on the same foundation 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down then men are cast out and women too as well as children Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered and I grant it that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church are left out I will not say cast out for they were never in of the Christian visible Church as well as children If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew I answer What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members of the Church and then set it up anew Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament but that if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church Christ repealed it when neither John Baptist nor Christ nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism without his personal faith and repentance Mr. B. saith I will wast no more time in confuting such slender arguments but shall willingly leave it to the judgement of any understanding unbyassed man whether Mr. T. have well proved that God repealed his Ordinance and revoked his mercifull gift that some infants shall be Church members Answ. It is my burthen that I must waste more time in refuting such empty scriblings as these
But infants are not built by preaching therefore they are not parts of the Church visible 1 Cor. 1 2 The Church is of them who are called to be Saints which is by preaching the Gospel v. 23 24. But infants are not so called Ergo they are not of the visible Church Christian. Acts 2.41 47. 5.14 They who were added to the Church did all hear the word and believe But infants did not so therefore they were not added to the Church and consequently were not visible church-members They were not parts of the Church who did not come together were not gathered together for all the Church did come together with one accord in Solomons Porch Acts 5.11 12. were gathered together by the Apostle Acts 14.27 But infants were no part of them they were not with one accord any of those to whom the Apostle told what God had done with them therefore they were not part of the visible Church They were no part of the Church of God who were none of the flock of God to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers over them by the Holy Ghost to feed them For all these things are attributed to all the flock or Church of God at Ephesus Acts 10.28 But infants were none of the flock to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers by the Holy Ghost to feed them Nurses were to attend and feed infants not teaching and ruling Elders whose work was in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 therfore infants were none of the flock or Church of God visible at that time They were no part of the Church of God who were not in duty to be sanctified by the Word For the whole Church was in duty to be sanctified by the Word as Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. gathers from Ephs. 5.26 concerning Baptism But no infant is in duty to be so sanctified it were a ridiculous thing to tâ—e Preachers to sanctifie or wash infants by preaching the Word to them therefore they were no part of the Church The Churches had rest and were edified walked were multiplied Acts 9.31 Acts 12.5 Prayer was made of the Church unto God for Peter The Church at Hierusalem Acts 11 22. is said to hear tidings to send Barnabas who with Paul assemble with the Church v. 26. fit persons to convene Acts 21.22 to receive orders 1 Cor. 16.1 With many more such attributes which neither are nor can ordinarily be said of infants no nor any attribute in all the New Testament which is said of the visible Church Christian is said of infants therefore they were not accounted visible members in the first Christian Churches nor are rightly now so taken 5. They who were not reckoned as Christs Disciples were not visible church-members For as Mr. B. rightly saith plain Script c. All church-members are Christs Disciples But infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples This is proved 1. from the places in all the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere where there is mention of Christs Disciples there are such things declared of them as do exclude infants from the number of them I omit Acts 1.15 6.1 2 5 7. before mentioned Acts 11.26 29. It is said that Barnabas and Saul a whole year assembled themselves with the Church and taught much people and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch And upon the prediction of a dearth it is said Then the Disciples every man according to his ability determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea which they also did and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul From whence this is apparent that the Church the Disciples the Christians were then Synonyma or terms importing the same pâ—â—sons so that he who was not a Disciple was not of the Church nor a Christian. But no infant was then reckoned as a Disciple This is proved from what is said of every Disciple v. 29. they determined to send and did send which none will say infants did Ergo infants were not then reckoned among Disciples Christians or members of the visible Church Christian. Acts 14.20 21 22. it is said that the Disciples stood round about Paul that he and Barnabas taught many or made many Disciples and that they confirmed the souls of the Disciples exhorting them to continue in the faith From whence it is manifest that the Disciples then were such as stood round about Paul that they were taught or made Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospel that they were in the faith capable of confirmation and exhortation But such were not infants Ergo they were not then reckoned as Disciples and consequenâ—â—y not church-members Acts 8.3 made havock of the Church Acts 9.1 against the Disciples v. 13. the Saints at Hierusalem v. 19. the Disciples at Damascus v. 25. the Disciples v. 26. joyning to the Church is joyning to the Disciples v. 35. the Brethren v. 31. the Churches v. 38. the Disciples heard v. 41. called the Saints Acts. 15.1 it is said they taught the Brethren v. 3. being brought on their way by the Church they caused great joy unto all the Brethren v. 4. they were received of the Church v. 10. the Disciples are they whose hearts were purified by faith the whole Church v. 22. are the Brethren v. 23. who send greeting to the Brethren v. 30. they were the multitude gathered together v. 32. they exhorted the Brethren v. 33. were let go in peace from the Brethren v. 36. let us visit our Brethren v. 40. recommended by the Brethren v. 41. confirming the Churches Acts 10.2 well reported of by the Brethren v. 5. And so were the Churches established in the faith and increased in number daily v. 40. and when they had seen the Brethren they comforted them Acts 17.10 14. the Brethren sent away Paul Which passages do shew that these terms were then of the same extent and synonymous the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints But infants were none of the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints as all the passages where they are mentioned shew therefore infants were not then visible church members Acts 18.18 Paul took leave of the Brethren v. 22. he saluted the Church v. 23. strengthened all the Disciples which strengthening was by teaching and exhorting as Acts 14. â—2 shews Which infants were not capable of therefore they were not Disciples V. 27. the Brethren wrote exhorting the Disciples to receive Apollos who helped them much who believed through grace Acts 19.1 2. Paul finds certain Disciples who were Believers v. 9. separates the Disciples v. 30. the Disciples would not suffer Paul to enter in unto the people Acts 20.7 Upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them at Troas Which shews plainly that the Disciples did use to break bread on the first day of the week and that those who were Disciples did
a fact of God which is a transeunt thing and I think it were a foolish undertaking for mee to prove the repeal of a fact Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that law ordinance statute or decree of God is that is repealeable that is which may in congruous sence bee either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law for ever This I never found in your books nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular text or texts of holy Scripture where that law is Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers as you call them And I think you do unjustly impute the direfull consequences you speak of to the denial of infant baptism and to the practise of adult bapâ—ism and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others I yet expect your texts knowing none in any of your books that mention that law of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly and am yours as is meet Bewdley this 4th of April 1655. John Tombes About a fortnight after I received this Letter to me from him Sir If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work let me request you to tell me fully exactly and plainly what transient fact you mean which you conceive without law or promise did make Church members that so I may know where the competition lieth When I know your meaning I intend God willing to send you a speedy answer to your last Your fellow-servant April 16. 1655. Rich. Baxter Upon the receipt whereof I speedily returned to him on the day of the date of it being then at Bewdley this following Letter Sir The transeunt fact of God whereby infants were visible Churchmembers was plainly exprest in my last to you to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people which is the expression of Moses Deut. 4.34 Exod. 6.7 And by it I mean that which is expressed Levit. 20.24.26 when God said I have severed you from other people that you should be mine The same thing is expressed 1 Kings 8.53 Isai 43 1. This I term fact as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it Following herein Stephen Acts 7.2 and Nehem 9.7 I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Ur Gen. 12.1 to which succeeded in their times the enlarging of his family removing of Lot Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esau distinction by Circumcision the birth of Isaac Jacob his leading to Padan Aram increase there removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving there and chiefly the bringing of them thence to which principally the Scripture refers this fact Exod. 19.4 Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 Hos. 11.1 the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them laws settling their Priesthood tabernacle army government inheritance By which fact the infants of the Israelites were visible Churchmembers as being part of the Congregation of Israel and in like manner though not with equal right for they might be sold away were the bought servants or captives whether infants or of age though their parents were professed idolaters And this I said was without promise or precept meaning such promise or precept as you in your Letter say I confess and you describe a promise conferring to infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the childe to God and entering into Covenant which confers the benefit For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. and the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God and a precept of Circumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. and Deut. 29. Yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Churchmembership or precept for parents or others concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision as in your Book of Baptism you assert Nor do I conceive that infants of Israel were made visible Church members by the promises in the covenants or the precepts forenamed but by Gods transeunt fact which I have described Which I therefore term transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall bee for the future though capable of continuance in the same or the like acts or of interruption Which continuance or interruption is known by narration of what God hath done not by any legal revocation or renewing or continuance of a promise or precept concerning that thing Now as the Churchmembership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call and was completed when they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 so I conceive it ceased when upon their rejection of Christ as was foreâ—told Matth. 21.43 they were broken off from being Gods people which was completed at the destruction of Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed as Christ fore-told Luke 19.43 44. And instead of the Jewish people by the preaching of the Gospel confirmed by mighty signes God gathered to himself a Church of another frame in a spiritual way according to the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 16. in which he included not infants the Jews themselves were no part of the Christian Church without repentance and faith in Christ professed at least Having now fully exactly and plainly told you my meaning as you request I do now expect your speedy answer to my last and therein to fulfill my request of setting down the particular texts of holy Scripture wherein that law largely taken comprehending promise and precept of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert to be unrepealed is contained If you shall in your answer set down wherein the blessing benefit and priviledges of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert unrepealed did consist I may better understand you then I do But I shall press you no further then you shall be willing in this thing I am Yours as is meet Bewdley April 21. 1655. John Tombes On May 29. 1655. I received this following answer Sir A probability of doing or receiving good is to me a call to action Seeing no such probability I told you at first my purposes to forbear any further debates with you till you had better answered what is said In your next you seemed to deal so plainly as if some small probability of
but hereby is not proved that any infants were visible Churchmembers but in the Congregation of Israel but rather the contrary Sith they were become Jews that is of the Congregation of Israel 8. Saith Mr. B. The scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abrahams successors and yet were to Circumcise their children as Churchmembers Answ. Though they were from under the Government of Abrahams successor in respect of all power and command yet they were under their Government so far as they were permitted the exercise of the Mosaick Lawes and were of the Congregation of Israel and were Circumcised as members thereof and therefore no infants yet proved visible Church-members out of that Congregation 9. Saith Mr. B. When Jonas preached to Ninive it was all the race of man among them without exception from the greatest to the least that was to fast and joyn in the humiliation Ergo all even infants as well as others were to partake of the remission If you say the beasts were to fast too I answer as they were capable in their kinde of part of the curse so were they of part of the benefit but their capacity was not as mans They fasted to manifest mans humiliation And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kinde no wonder if infants sped the better in theirs and according to their capacities and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin Answ. All this is quite from the business for it proves not that either the aged or the infants were visible Churchmembers out of the Congregation of Israel If the fasting prove the visible Churchmembership it proves the visible Churchmembership of the beasts as well as the infant-men If the repentance bee alledged to prove it I hardly think such a sudden quickly past repentance will prove any of them visible Churchmembers of Christ any more then the Mariners prayer fear sacrificing making vowes Jonah 1.14.6 If it do yet it proves onely the aged who turned from their evil way Jonah 3.10 to be visible Churchmembers there 's no proof yet of an infants visible Churchmembership out of the Congregation of Israel 10. Saith Mr. B. What I have said of Sem and many others and their posterity already I shall not here again repeat and more will be said anon to the following questions Answ. What is said shall be answered in its place Mr. B. goes on thus The 2d proposition to be proved is that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel But this you did heretofore acknowledge and therefore I suppose will not now deny I suppose it past controversie between us 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ Heb. 11.26 and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ and searched diligently and prophesied of the grace to come and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time and testifying before hand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1.10 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ and members of the body of Christ and given for the edification of that body Though it was revealed to them that the higher privigledes of the Church after the comming of Christ were not for them but for us 1 Pet. 1.12 2. I suppose it agreed on also between us that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ and therefore either infants were members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods institution Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two but one Church For Moses was Christs Usher and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ And though the foolish Jewes by mis-understanding them made a separation and made Moses Disciples to bee separate from Christs Disciples and so set up the alone shadowes of things to come yet the body is all of Christ Col. 2.17 and by so doing they violated Gods institution and unchurcht themselves 3. I suppose it agreed also that Christs Church is but one and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible yet make up one body 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal Though the Church was more eminently called Catholike when the wall of separation was taken down But I remember I have proved this in my Book part 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now Answ. I grant as I did heretofore that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel or rather in that they were of the Congregation of Israel nor do I deny that Christ had then a Church on earth nor that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ. But as for the third though I grant that Christs invisible Church is but one by unity of the same spirit and faith and that the visible Church is but one in some respect namely in respect of the profession oâ— the same faith and hope in Christ yet they are not so one as that whoever is a visible member of one particular Church is a member of each particular Church and though I yeild that whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal yet it follows not which is it that Mr. B. drives at and vainly talks of his proving it elsewhere as will be shewed hereafter that every one who was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church in that hee was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church As for instance Cornelius and his house who feared God Acts 10.2 were visible members of that particular Church of his house and so of the universal yet were not visible members of the particular Church Jewish as may bee proved from their uncircumcision and shunning as unclean by the Jews Acts 10. 11.3 The reason is manifest For the universal hath not a distinct existence from the parts nor is any part existing in another part because it is part of the whole as the finger is not in every part of the body because it is in the body in that it is in the hand which is a part And therefore Mr. Bs. arguing which he confides so much in part 1. ch 20. of plain Script c. will appear to be vain that because infants
And if we must needs take up a fashion of disputing by challenges I challenge Mr. B. to shew me one infant who was a visible Churchmember out of the Nation of the Hebrews â— I conceive from Acts. 16.1 2 Tim. 1.5 that Timothy was born of a Churchmember yet no Churchmember visible in infancy Anabaptists refuse not the mercy of visible Churchmembership if God had offered it to their infants nor would they refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism if God had commanded it But they dare not challenge what God hath not granted nor profane the Ordinance of Christ by their altering it into that which he hath not appointed Mr. B. goes on thus SECT LVIII Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that â—aith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of Nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resâ—gnation and dedication of the infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereâ—f If you say infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Churchmember as the child of a Noble man is of his honours and title to his inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediatour or head of the Church in his infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Answ. It is a bold attempt to undertake to prove a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed from the law of Nature when Churches are onely instituted not by any law of Nature and consequently there can be no direction in the law of Nature who shall be visible Churchmembers who not Nor could both those things Mr. B. considers be proved to wit the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and Gods acceptance of them and entertaining of them into that estate i. e. of dedicated persons prove them visible Churchmembers there 's more required thereto to wit something discernable by sense by which they may be said to be part of Gods people Yet I shall examine his proofs The conclusion may be understood of giving up devoting dedicating to God by prayer or vow or else by an outward sign such as Circumcision or Baptism This latter is not of the law of nature being meer instituted worship the former may be granted without any hurt to my cause Nevertheless I shall say something to the argument Which hath at least four terms and so is faulty in the form and for the matter of it the major is not true without limitation For the law of nature doth not bind every man to give to every one his own due except it be that due which is due from the giver or it belongs to him to give A private man is bound to pay his own debt not to pay every other mans debt to him to whom it is due Now infants may be said to be Gods due either in respect of their persons or their service Infants in infancy can do no service nor doth God require any service of them and therefore there is none due and therefore no parents do or are bound by any act of theirs for their infants service to give God his due of their infants service And for their persons they are Gods due in that he may of right dispose of them as he wil in life and death health or sickness and in this respect parents have no way of giving God his due but by acknowledging his Soveraignty and submitting to his will Dedication to God for the future iâ—â—o giving of God his due from infants it is neither the giving of God the due of their persons or their service they are bound themselves when they come to understanding to do it by themselves and if they do it not the parents dedication cannot do it I object not that infants should not be devoted to to God till they can do service but that what ever it be it is not the giving God his own due from infants nor doth make them visible Churchmakers Mr. B. adds 2. The law of nature bindeth all parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Answ. To dedicate them by prayer and thanksgiving and vows to God may tend to these endâ— But to do it by Baptism not required of God secures not Gods right but abuseth his name nor doth it tend to the childrens good or prevent their sin and misery For neither is there promise of God that the parents dedicating the child by Baptism shall have these effects nor do these effects follow ex opere operato nor is there any obligation real put by infant-baptism on the person though there may be a putative obligation thereby But really infant-baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is by which means they are kept in vain presumption of their safe condition and this constant experience and the acknowledgement of observing men doth witness 2. They are kept back thereby from the true Baptism of Christ which hath had and would have a strong tie on mens consciences if it were solemnly and in a right manner performed as it should be Surely a mans own engagement by himself in all probability must have a stronger operation then an engagement by another for him notwithstanding the fond conceits of Mr. Simon Ford and Mr. John Goodwin of edification by infant
be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant yea the Apostle concludes and proves Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. That all the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not comprehended in that promise and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers câ—n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7 and precept v. 9.10 9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this maâ—ter that in the great promise Gen. 12.3 the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth all the families of the earth shall be blessed as the Heb. Samar Arabic or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised and so a Gospel blessing Ergo the Syriac adds and in thy seed and the Arab. hath by thee And the Apostle fully testifieth that So that as tribes kindreds families do most certainly comprehend the infants and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ. Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3 is not visible Churchmembership which may be without justification but justification as the Apostle expresly expounds it Gal. 3.8 which may be without visible Church-membership Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation nor every one of a tribe or kindred as it is Acts 3.25 but the elect and believers of each nation tribe or kindred as the Apostle doth both v. 7. 9. shew terming them that are blessed those that are of faith Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain the promise being not of visible Churchmembership nor to nations families kindreds entirely nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such but to so many of all nations kindreds and families as are believers or elect Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families and this promise without apparent violence to the Text. 10. Saith he Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision so they are two distinct things and as the sign is here commanded de novo so the thing signified I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant is commanded with it though not de novo as a thing now beginning as the sign did So that here is in Circumcision not onely a command to do the circumcising outward act but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people So that here are two distinct duties concurrent â—he one external newly instituted the other internal not newly instituted And therefore the former may cease and yet the later stand and it 's no proof that the later Covenant engagement of infants to God is ceased because the sign of Circumcision is ceased no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin or that women were not Churchmembers separated engaged dedicated to God in infancy because they were not circumcised And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17. Answ. I do indeed but not such as Mr. B. should produce a promise of infants visible Churchmembership and a precept of their entring unrepealed there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed As for his discourse of a duty of engaging separating to God and dedicating which is internal and not instituted de novo it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were is it any thing to the purpose For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself infants are visible Churchmembers afore it yea without it nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it but by an outward sign as he himself determines part 1. ch 4. of Baptism And this sure is now Baptism which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents for then they should be Ministers of the Seals which he counts one of my six errours I never denied an internal duty of faith prayer vowing c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God prayer for them is practised by me in publick but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers or admissable by Baptism He adds And when I consider the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy then that she was entred afterwards at age or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her Answ. What in the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah Mr. B. observes which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy I know not There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother and Rachel his daughters Idols as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive that either in that house there was no Church of God or at best a very impure one though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob then the daughters of the Canaanites whom Esau chose Mr. B. adds And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed not onely in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth of which before but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers For Gen. 22.16 17 18. it 's thus alledged because thou hast done this thing c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice And Gen. 26.3 4 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac and the same reason assigned because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my commandments my statutes and my laws How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing I am not determining but taking the words as I find them in general I may conclude that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some
The dedication of the firstâ—born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him and yet he can give no more Scripture or reason for it then I can for this that the Churchmembership of infants was but to endure till Christs comming in the flesh To omit what I have already argued in the 50 51 52. sections before in my apprehension the Apostle doth plainly teach Gal. 3.16 to the end that the Churchmembership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham continued onely till faith came that is till Christ was exhibited and believed on as already come in the flesh that now all are children of God Abrahams seed by faith that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile the Jews natural birth brings not him in the Church nor the Gentiles uncircumcision excludes him that so many as are admitted into the Church by Baptism do put on Christ and consequently the Churchmembership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth and there is no Churchmembership but by faith in Christ. And this I might further confirm from Gal. 5.6 Col. 2.11 12. 3.11 And to these Scriptures I add this reason The course that God took in severing the Jewish nation from other people circumcising the males keeping the distinction of tribes and the inheritances in the families and the genealogies so exactly till Christ came ordering the tax of Augustus at the time of Christs birth and after his ascension scattering the Jews out of their land overturning their Commonwealth confounding their pedigrees taking to himself another Church in another way by preaching the Gospel and baptizing believers and none else doth plainly evidence to me that infants Churchmembership was but an introduction type shadow fore-runner to Christs manifestation in the flesh and to cease as John Baptists office did when Christ was exhibited and fully manifested to the world And accordingly Mr. Bs. questions are answered the first that it was heard of before that upon the comming of Christ believers Church-membership was to succeed to birth-Churchmembership To the second that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them yet by his comming he alters Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith The third and fourth are answered by setting down my apprehension and the Scriptures and reason of it The fifth I answer affirmatively the sixth negatively The seventh that men and women are not Churchmembers now by birth any more then infants and in that respect the nature of Churchmembership is the same in both To the eighth the Apostle did speak of it in the places before cited To the ninth the silly comforter knows no reason why the Jews broken off should be comforted but thinks it was matter of comfort to the believing Jews that in stead of infants visible Churchmembership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy the body in stead of the shadow the Sun risen in stead of the Day-star Mr. B. goes on thus But let us consider a little what is the Church Is it not the body of Christ Even all the Church since Adams fall and the making of a new Covenant is one body of Christ Even the visible Church is his visible body as 1 Cor. 12. and many Scriptures fully shew therefore even the branches not bearing fruit are said to be in him that is in his visible body Joh. 14.1 2 3. Now doth Christ break off all infants from his body that he may come in the flesh to be a greater mercy to them What 's that but to be a greater mercy then himself who is the life and welfare of the body Answ. The invisible Church is all one body of Christ the visible hath had such differences that one part to wit those who feared God and prayed continually Acts 10 2. yet had no communion with the other but were counted unclean and shunned because uncircumcised Acts 11 2 3. The Church of the circumcised which was by natural birth is now broken off upon Christs comming and another Church by faith of all nations is raised Acts 10.34 35. in which infants are not till they believe who though they are of the invisible Church or body of Christ by election and invisible operation of the spirit yet are not of the visible till they profess faith in Christ as already come in the flesh who was the great mercy promised to Abraham Joh. 8.56 in which he rejoyced although a great part of his natural seed were broken off and this was a greater mercy then was before exhibited although then Christ was the life and welfare of the body Again saith Mr. B it seems by this Mr. T. thinks that excommunication is a great mercy If all the Jews infants had been excommunicate or cast out of the Church by God himself it were no more then Christ did in mercy never bringing them into any other Church in stead Answ. Nothing said by me gives any occasion to this imputation Excommunication if just I count a curse but the non taking of infants into the visible Church Christian hath nothing of a curse in it it being onely an act of God according to his Soveraignty who had liberty to appoint who should be of his Church who not Against this strange fiction saith Mr. B. I argued thus If ordinarily God shew not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it then it is not a greater mercy or for the parties greater good to be put out then to be in But ordinarily God sheweth not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it Therefore it is not for their greater good nor in greater mercy to be put out To this Mr. T. answered nothing Answ. What need I when I grant the conclusion Mr. B. makes a strange fiction of his own as if I thought excommunication to be cast out or put out of the Church a great mercy and held infants were excommunicated cast or put out of the Church Which is far from me or any thing I say who do not assert them put out by any judicial sentence but by a free act of Gods soveraignty left out for reasons best known to himself but in part revealed to us Mr. B. adds I argued also thus â—f those that are out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ then it is not to them a great mercy to be out of the Church But those out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ therefore it cannot be to them a greater mercy To this Mr. T. answered that it is a greater mercy to infants since Christ to be out of the Church then before to be in it and that they have as much assurance of
I throw down my weapons or forsake my cause by my answer then to this argument is but Mr. Bs. dream Of what alteration there was of the terms of his argument he must bear the blame who would not give me his arguments in writing under his own hand nor am I to be blamed for drawing it so short being fearful to wrong him by a fuller reciting And I perceive I had great cause so to do when I finde Mr. B. himself altering the terms of his own major in a few lines in the former it is except it be to give a greater in its stead in the later except that they may have a greater in stead which are not the same And for my answer if my terming his arguments petty reasonings had been mine onely answer yet it had been a good and sufficient answer if this be granted which I conceive an evident truth that of Divine institution and such is this of visible Churchmembership there is no reason can be right but what is from Gods own appointment though it may seem right to us it should be so Papists argue that if God did not make one oecumenical Bishop as there was one High Priest among the Jews to preserve unity non satis discretuâ— esset he should not be discreet enough Now this seems to our reason plausible and yet we justly say that in things positive our reason is deceivable and Gods appointment onely is to be attended And so it is in this though this reason of Mr. B. seem plausible yet it were no forsaking the cause though I could not answer it any otherwise then thus It is Mr. Bs. petty reasoning from his own conceits of what he imagines fiâ— in a matter of meer institution concerning which it is nevertheless manifest from the History of the New Testament that God hath appointed otherwise then is Gods way according to his reason which indeed is but arrogant presumption when it prescribes to God But I shall answer his argument more amply And though I did not deny his major iâ— the Dispute or Sermon I say if it be understood oâ— a greater mercy in the same kind and to the same persons it is not true the believing Jews were deprived of their possessions in Judea in mercy yet had not a greater meâ—cy in the same kind but another in the gifts of the spirit it was in mercy that the Priests converted to the faith were deprived of their office in the Temple and their children of the portion of the offerings there which were mercies to them and yet no such office or portion provided for them and their children but the benefit redoundâ—d to the Gentiles converted whose conversion was prayed for by David Isaiah c. and was a mercy to them though their posterity might be broken off and the national Church dissolved I conceive that Gods ways are so free and various in this kind that Mr Bs. maâ—or cannot be universally true not is Mr. Bs. reason cogent For suppose God annihilate in mercy there is no greater mercy given yet Hell is not turned into Heaven and made the greatest place of mercies in this case there is a meer deprivation of mercy in mercy But the thing is more apparent in deprivations of some temporal benefits God may deprive in mercy that is not in judgement of some temporal benefit meerly because he will out of his freedome to dispose of his own yet give no greater mercy in stead of it then he should have had if that had not been taken away and that God doth not do so who can say me thinks the Apostles determination Rom. 11.34 should satisfie that he doth And yet Hell should not be the greatest place of mercies for there is not onely a privation of temporal but also of spiritual and eternal mercies and that too with accumulation of torments which is otherwise in the case proposed And for the particular mercy of Church-membership the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was but a temporal mercy and a comparative mercy in respect of the nations it neither certainly assured their eternal nor present welfare yea when Christ came considering how the nation of the Jews was against Christ it was then rather their danger then their mercy and was a recompenced sufficiently in being out of that Church which consisted of a rebellious and gainsaying people and being though not visible Churchmembers in the Christian society yet in the families where the spirit of God was given and Christ known Mr. B. adds 2. And observe next that as Mr T. denieth not the major so here be plainly grants the minor and so yeelds the whole cause For the minor was that here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership Doth not Mr. T. acknowledge this when be saith twice over 1. That it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have their infants put out of the Church And so if the mercy be onely to the catholick Church that they be none of the Church visible then it is not to them a mercy So that he taketh it to be a mercy onely to others but none to them according to this answer 2. Yea he saith it more plainly the second time that it is in mercy to the whole Church though no priviledge much less a greater mercy be to them to the infants themselves So that for my part I think I may well break off here and take the whole cause as yeelded For if it be no mercy to any to be deprived of mercy except that they may have a greater And if infants have no greater in stead of this but onely their parents have a greater and both these be confessed then it must follow that it is no mercy to infants to be deprived of this mercy of their Churchmembership and consequently God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good which is the thing I am proving And Mr. T. yeeldeth that it is not taken from them in justice to their hurt and therefore it is not taken from them at all And thus you see what is become of the cause that hath been driven on with such confidence Answ. However I onely denied the minor in the Dispute and Sermon yet Mr. B. may see by the answer before that here I deny his major in the first argument in this chapter yea and that he can prove that it is not in justice that the Churchmembership visible Jewish ceased though I stil adhere to it that it was in mercy and of this argument I have here denied the major though I did not so before and am ready to shew that I have not yeelded the minor nor any whit of the cause and therefore suppose Mr. B. hath need to manage his weapons better ere he gain this cause yea though he should have this argument yeelded yet the cause is not gained for the reason before given But let us view his minor and my answer His minor is that
part standing For the partition waâ—l â—s clearly meant of the body of Ceremonies and necessitie of repairing to the Temple and taking the yoke of Moses Law on them which kept the Gentiles from joyning with the Jewes in the worship of the same God which I keep not up in any sort much less pluck up the wall of the Church or vineyard it self and as for our children to lay all waste to the wilderness but Mr. B. by maintaining a national Church or visible Church-membership by natural discent doth keep up the partition wall in true construction sith the way of pulling down the partiâ—ion wall by God haâ—h been by making all one body through faith the succession of which in the place of Circumcision and the Jewish Churchmembership is the doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. and elsewhere as is shewed before Mr. B. continues the same prattle Ch. 15. thus My 11. arg is this If the children of believers be now put out of the Church then they are in a worse condicion then the very children of the Gentiles were before the comming of Christ But that were most absurd and false therefore so is the antecedent The consequent would plainly follow if the antecedent were true as is evident thus Before Christs comming any Gentile in the world without exception if hee would might have his children to be members of the visible Church But now according to Mr. T. no Gentile may have his child a member of the Church therefore according to this doctrine the very Gentiles as well as the Jews are in a worse condition now and Christ should come to be a destroyer and do hurt to all the world which is most vile doctrine That the Gentiles might have their children Church-members before if they would come in themselves is not denied nor indeed can bee For it is the express letter of Gods law that any stranger that would come in might bring his children and all bee circumcised and admitted members of the Jews Church This was the case of any that would be full proselytes God in providence did deny to give the knowledge of his laws to the Gentiles as he did to the Jews but he excepted no man out of the mercy of his Covenant that would come in and take it except some few that were destinated to wrath for the height of their wickedness whom he commanded them presently utterly to destroy If any say that the Gentiles were admitted with their infants into no Church but the particular Church of the Jews I shall answer him 1. That it is false for they were admitted into the visible universal Church as I shall shew more fully afterward 2. If it were so yet the Church of the Jewes was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better state then those without So that he that will be of the faith of our opposers you see must believe that Christ hath come to deny the very Gentiles that priviledge which for their children they had before Yea that you may see it was not tied to the Jews onely or the seed of Abraham even when Abrahams own family was circumcised and as Mr. T. thinks then first admitted all into the Church there was but one of the seed of Abraham circumcised at that time for he had no one but Ishmael but of servants that were not of his seed there were admitted or circumcised 318. trained men-servants that fought for him Gen. 14.14 and how many hundred women and children and all he had you may conjecture And all these were then of the Church and but one of Abrahams seed and that one Ishmael Therefore certainly though the greatest priviledges were reserved for Isaac and his seed of whom Christ was to come yet not the priviledge of sole churchmembership for the very children of Abrahams servants were churchmembers And so I think this is plain enough Answ. It is most vile doctrine to say Christ came to be a destroyer and to do hurt to all the world and it is most vile doctrine which Mr. B. insinuates as if the denying of infants visible churchmembership did infer their destruction which is most palpably false sith neither were all churchmembers visible saved as v. g. Ishmael Esau nor all non-visible churchmembers damned as v. g. abortives still-borns And therefore Mr. B. by these insinuations discovers nothing but his own vitulency and I can justly deny the consequence of his argument till he shew me what benefit the infants of believers now do lose by not being Christian visible churchmembers which tends to their destruction and what is the benefit of infant visible Christian churchmembership which is for their salvation which they have not though they be not visible churchmembers I mean real and not meer putative benefit For my part 1. I think still that infants were not admitted into any visible Church but the Jews and their being of the universal was onely in that they were of the Jewish 2. I think it is a benefit not to be of the Church Jewish in which men were entred by circumcision and bound to keep the law and that Cornelius and such other as were not full proselytes were in as good a case as the full proselytes and that it is but vain talk of Mr. B. that the Church of the Jews was a happy Church of God in a thousand fold better estate then those without onely as proselytes of the gate 3. That though there were in the Jewish Church other then Abrahams seed yet they were all of the Hebrew Common-wealth 4. That many of those churchmembers had no part in any of the promises made to Abraham And I think this argument of Mr. B. takes onely with them who superficially look into the thing as Mr. B. hath done SECT LXVII Mr. 12th arg ch 17. part 1. of Baptism from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is answered and my answers vindicated CH. 17. he proceeds thus My 12th Arg. is from the forementioned Text Deut. 29.10 11 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones were entred into Covenant with God From whence I argue thus If the Covenant which those infants who were then church-members were entred into with God was a Covenant of grace or a Gospel Covenant then it is not repealed and consequently their churchmembership is not repealed as being built on the Covenant or inseparably conjunct But the said Covenant which the infants who were then churchmembers did pass into was a Covenant of grace as distinct from the law which was repealed therefore neither it nor their churchmembership is repealed Here I shall prove 1. That all the infants did pass into this Covenant 2. That they were churchmembers that did so 3. That it was such a Covenant of grace 4. And then it will follow that it is not repealed Answ. The argument from this Text was urged very hotly by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. but in another manner as I gather from two copies of
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
deserved not an answer Ch. 19. he saith thus My 14 th arg is this If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law nor yet of the law of works then it is not repealed But it was no part of the ceremonial law nor meerly judicial nor part of the law of works as such therefore it is not repealed The consequence is evident seeing no other laws are repealed The antecedent I prove in its parts 1. None will say it was part of the law of works for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended But churchmembership was a mercy Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all which he hath not proved yet distinct from the law of Circumcision and this is my answer to this argument that there is no such law at all and this is enough Yet I add 2. If his preâ—ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works then it is not of the law of nature which before and after he asserts for the law and Covenant of nature is the law and Covenant of works which I think Mr. B. wil not deny surely it is not of grace in Christ Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall but such is the law of nature Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended is a dictate of Divines which needs proof That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works is proved before sect 43. But that yeelded some mercy Levit. 4.2 20 26 31 35. Numb 15.22 23 24 28. Ergo. 4. How far and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy and how it is otherwise now is shewed before sect 64 66. 2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law then 1. let them shew what it was a type of and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it to be so if they can Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremonial nor every ceremonial thing to be typical Or if it be so yet I am sure of every thing ceremonial which was typical Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular at least he cannot prove it When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes bowls snuffers and other utensils about the tabernacle and of every thing appointed concerning them their colour fashion mettal c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task But till then it is enough to tell him that to it with other things typified Christ Col. 2.17 succeeded The churchmembership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough let Mr. B. answer and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants pag. 112.113 114 115 116 c. 2. Saith he If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony then the Church it self should be but a ceremony And so the Church in Abrahamâ— family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah Melchizedech Sem Job Lot c. which were more then ceremonies Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial and yet not the materials that is the men a ceremony so churchmembership might be a ceremony yet not the churchmembers But I do not term either the one or the other a ceâ—emony it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered 3. Saith he And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law appears thus 1. As was last said then also the Church in Abrahams family should be more vile then the aforesaid for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy as we call the judicials Answ. Iâ— it weâ—e by any law that infants were Churchmembers it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the â—hree sorts of the Mosaical laws which Divines do so distinguish And to the argument I say 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family it is not made a piece of meer civil policy not Ecclâ—siastical for the Jewâ— Commonwealth was a holy policy and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer judicial laws as the constitution of the Sanhedâ—in and other things are and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah c. we cannot resolve sith we find little or nothing of them no mention of Noahs infants or Melchizedecs Sems Jobs or Lots except Ammâ—n and Moab nothing said of their Churchmembership or of the government of the families what it was or by what law 2. Saith he It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial upon which meer judicials are built why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial Answ. It can be shewn that if there be such a law it is a meer judicial law because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel as it is termed Ephes. 2.12 and the entring of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people and not by the priests And this we daâ—e say of the womens visible Churchmembership as well as the infants and that neither of them were by a moral law oâ— Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies 3. Saiâ—h he It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects And Mr. T. hath told me his judgement that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers I thinke this is past denial Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature no nor of the law of nations if they were all other government then of Kings were against these laws much less can it be oâ— the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects According to my judgment the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally but by institution and therefore according to my grounds it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers So that I find none oâ— these things past denial 4. Saith he The promise that took them in and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of â—aith as is proved before therefore not a meer judicial Answ. Neither were they
the vniversal Church was onely by reason of their membership in the particular and therefore ceased with it And how is this proved Why Mr. T. saith it is so and that is the best proof and all that I could get Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it But I did then think and do still think it so plain that it needed not proof and as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith that every one that is a member of a part is a member of the whole and that the individual Church that then was was broken off for unbelief and I know no visible Church but an individual Methinks it is all one as if I had said the finger is onely a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body the finger ceaseth to be a member But yet M. B. will try whether hee can disprove this any better 1. Saith he I think I have sufficiently proved that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed but onely the accidental ceremonies and the individual Church that then was is broken off for unbelief but the Olive still remained Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish which if broken off though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed and the Olive still remained yet the infant Churchmembership which came onely in with the Jewish national Church might and did cease 2. Saith he If the Jews Church were repealed yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church must prove it well For if I find that they were once in it I need no more proof that they remain in till some one shew me where it is revoked which is not yet done by any that I know of Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church and of the Jews Church which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal is a piece of Baxterian non-sense which I use not That the Jewish Church national is broken off and that churchmembership by birth is altered into churchmembership by faith is so fully proved before sect 50 51 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me that I count it superfluous to add any more If it satisfie not Mr. B. it 's to be ascribed to his pertinacy in his opinion which to be his proper temper I was told long ago and much experience of him by my self and others find to be true 3. Saith he The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher priviledge then our standing or membership in any particular Therefore it will not follow that infants lose the greater because they lose the lesser and that they are cast out of the universal because they are cast out of the particular Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively because the universal comprehend the most excellent part and the rest also but not intensively sith all the excellency may be from one part Christ the head is not the universal body and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ that is hath not more perfection then Christ for all the excellency in all the members is Christs and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher priviledge then in the particular Church yea if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular yet the standing in the particular is a higher priviledge Else why do Ministers exhort men to joyn with some particular Church and to submit to their Pastors is it not for their advantage Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers and those that are separâ—tists from a particular Church and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large and are so members of the universal Church should not think they have a higher priviledge then members of a particular Church If he do he doth wrong them in condemning them and disswading them from that state which is a higher priviledge Much less is it true concerning infants who are not visible Churchmembers but as they stand in the particular Church For they are not by their own profession visible Churchmembers but meerly in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people as God did the Hebrew nation and no other before nor since This is clear if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant this male infant would be no visible Churchmember there being nothing by which he is discernable to sense to be more one of Gods people then another infant though there weâ—e many Churches of Gentiles â—n other places Whereas on the other side if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers remote from any particular Churches I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal though of no particular Whence it follows that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish they lose their standing in the universal 4. Saith he Persons are first in order of nature or time or both members of the universal Church before they are members of any particular So was Noah Loâ— Abraham and all men before Christ and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church and not into any particular It is so with all others It is the general use and nature of Baptism they are baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so into the catholick Church but not into any particular Church If any such thing be it is secondary and accidental and additional and no proper end of Baptism So that it being first in order that we are entred into the visible universal Church it is likely to be of more durable continuance Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism and about the priority in order or time or both according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular I do agree that persons who were visible Churchmembers by their sensible profession of the true God were members of the universal afore they were of the particular But deny this concerning infants for the reason before given 5. Saith he It is no good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church or of the Jews particular Church to breaking off from the universal therefore this will not prove infants are broke off If a Jew had been forced into a strange countrey yet there both he and his children had been Churchmembers
and out of which the Church is taken then all those that are not taken out of the world with the Church are still of the world where Satan is Prince But the antecedent is before proved therefore the consequent is true The world and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution Answ. 1. The world and the Church are not in all the places cited contradistinct For Joh. 18.36 this world comprehends the Church as well as them without Christs Kingdome was not from the Church by their weapons or other procurement but this world is opposed to heavenly power and gift from whence Christ had his Kingdome 2. Nor in the rest of the places where the Devil is termed the God of this world or the Prince of this world or the Disciples are said not to be of the world can the speech be meant of infants for of them of whom it is said that the Devil is the God of this world by the world are meant 2 Cor. 4.4 those that believe not in whom he hath blinded their minds that the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them and so must the rest be understood where he is said to be the Prince of this world according to what is said Ephes. 2.2 which is not to be said of infants and in other places as John 15.19 John 17.14.16 they are said to hate the Apostles which is not to be said of infants And therefore from hence they are not proved to be in the Devils Kingdome though they were reprobates 3. The world is not in these places opposed to the visible Church so that who ever are in the visible Church are not of the world and they who are of the world are not of the visible Church For 1. the world out of whom the Apostles were called were the Jewish Church which if Mr. B. do not as I conceive he doth make the visible Church of God when the Apostles were called sure Mr. Bl. Mr. Cobbet and others do as I have shewed before and therefore the world is not put as contradistinct to the visible Church 2. The world is in the places cited so described by their actions of hating the Apostles by their exclusion out of Christs prayer Joh. 17.9 by their Prince Satan by the Apostles calling and choosing out of them that the world cannot be construed onely to note non-visible churchmembers but a party that are obstinate enemies to Christ and so reprobates whether in the visible Church or out of it and if it stand in direct contradistinction to the Church which I find not in any of the places cited it is to the invisible not to the meer visible Church so that they who are without the visible Church may be no part of the world therein meant and they that are within the visible Church may be part of the world 4. The definition that the Church are a people called out of the world being expounded of the visible Church is meant of outward call which infants are not capable of and so the definition excludes infants from being a part of the Church there meant and yet they are not in the world in the sense in which it is taken in the Texts mentioned except Joh. 18.36 For they are not haters of Christ or his Apostles nor recusant unbelievers nor such as obey Satan as their Prince But if it be expounded of the invisible Church and the calling meant of invisible operation of the spirit I deny not but elect infants may be so called out of the world and be part of the invisible Church These things premised I answer 1. The conclusion is not in the latter syllogism the same with the minor in the former syllogism which should have been proved 2. The antecedent or minor in the later syllogism which is this the Devil is the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church and out of which the Church is taken if it be meant of the visible Church I deny For neither is the world in any of the Texts distinct from the visible Church but the visible Church or some members of it are the world there meant and the Devil the Prince of them and the visible Church in respect at least of many perhaps most of their members not taken out of the world but in it still nor is the Devil the Prince of them that yet are uncalled by an outward call from the world if as infants they be not by their choice and actions conjoyned to the world but of them that voluntarily adhere to and act with the wicked world Infants are neither in the world as it is there taken nor without that is they are neither with them nor agaiâ—st them in their present state but as they say in Logick a whelp till the 9th day is neither blind nor seeing so an infant till it act is neither within nor without the world visibly in which Satan is Prince Nor are those dictates of Mr. B. true or proved by the Scriptures cited that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome that the world and the Church visible contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution But if the world be taken for reprobates and the Church be taken for the invisible Church of the elect I grant it is true that infants are in one part and that Satan or God is Prince of them But this is nothing for Mr. Bs. purpose though it be most agreeable to some passages as Joh. 17.9 c. about the world and the Church Mr. B. proceeds thus If it be said that yet they are not visibly in Satans Kingdome I answer If no infants be of Christs visible Church and this be a known thing then they are visibly out of it and if they be visibly out of that Church then they are visibly of the world which is Satans Kingdome seeing the world and the Church contain all Answ. Neither is it true that if it be a known thing that infants be not of Christs visible Church then they are visibly out of it except it be so known from their sensible action nor do the world taken in the sense opposite to Gods people and the visible Church contain all as Mr. B. dictates Mr. B. adds If it be said they may be of the invisible Church and yet not of the visible nor of Satans Kingdome I answer 1. it is visibly and not invisibly that the aforesaid distribution is to be understood 2. I shall anon prove that the visible Church is wider then the invisible and that ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible Answ. 1. How far the former speech is true or false is shewed before 2. As for the later though we may not judge ordâ—narily these or those particular persons to be of the invisible
to admit him except his profession seem to be serious and so sincers for who durst admit him if we knew he came but in jest or to make a scorn of Christ and Baptism So that to be a member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Therefore even Cardinal Cusanus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs And our Divines generally make the unsound hypocrites to be but to the Church as a wooden leg to the body or at the best as the hair and nails c. and as the straw and chaff to the corn And so doth Bellarmine himself and even many other whom he citeth of the Papists Aquinas Petr. a soto Joh. de Turrecremata Hugo Alex Alensis Canus And when Bellarmine feigneth Calvin and others to make two militant Churches our Divines reject it as a calumny and manifest fiction and say that the Church is not divided into two sorts but it is a two fold respect of one and the same Church one as to the internal essence the other aâ— to the external manner of existing as Ames speaks Answ. Though much of this passage be yeelded by me yet I reject those speeches because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible to be a visible member of the Church is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called the invisible of the true mystical body of Christ For to be a visible member of the Christian Church is not all one as to seem to be of the invisible Church For 1. a person may be of the visible Church according to Mr. B. who lives alone in America and therefore seems to no man to be of the invisible Church no man knoweth or judgeth probably or certainly him to be of Christs mystical body 2. A person may seem to be of the invisible Church and yet not be of the visible as an Indian while a Christian preacheth who yet professeth not Christ yet seems by his gestures to be affected with it and sundry others Therefore it is necessary to be a visible Churchmember that his profession be visible that is be discernable to mens understanding through the sensibility of it 3. To some a person may seem to be of the invisible Church to others not is he of the visible Church or not or are both true and if noâ— how shall we know which is true which not 4. To seem to be of 〈◊〉 invisible Church is but accidental to the visibility of a Churchmember though he should seem to none to be of the invisible Church yea though through mens ignorance or uncharitableness the person should seem to be a reprobate or hypocrite yet he might be nevertheleless a visible Christian and so a churchmember of the catholick visible which Mr. B. avoucheth Mr. Bs. reasons here go upon a gross mistake as if it were all one to be a visible churchmember and to be received or admitted as a visible churchmember and that a person were denominated visible from what men apprehend or what seems to them whereas the denomination is as Ames saith truly in the place meant by Mr. B. from the external form or manner of existing Though a person be not to be received as a visible member of the Church because he seems not to be found yet he may be a visible churchmember Nor is he such because they pass a judgement on him but because his profession is such as might shew him to be a Christian if any did observe it or would candidly interpret it But how far Mr. B. errs from the true understanding of the main point of his book what it is to be a visible churchmember sometimes making it the same with a seeming to be of the mystical body of Christ sometimes a right to a benefit and how indistinctly he speaks of this thing which if he had minded any exact disquisition of truth he should in the beginning of his Dispute have first cleared is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 17. at large pag. 228 c. In this part sect 55 c. And for want of observing this his mistake I judge many learned men and others have been misled by him He saith Again you must understand that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a member of any particular or political body or society as Rome would have it And to be a visible member doth not necessarily import that he is actually knowne to bee a member for hee may live among the blinde that cannot see that which is visible But that he is one so qualified as that hee ought to bee esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it Answ. 1. This passage doth overthrow Mr. Bs. definition of a visible Churchmember which is that he is one that seems to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church Now he that seems such is actually known or discerned to be such that seems so which is thought to be so Videtur quod sic videtur quod non in the Schools are expressâ—ons of a mans opinion but according to Mr. B. to be a visible church-member doth not necessarily import he is actually known or discerned therefore he may be a visible churchmember who doth not seem to the judgement of man to be of the invisible Church and then the definition is not right as not agreeing to every thing defined 2. His speeches He may live among the blind who cannot see that which is visible that he is one qualified so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ a man living alone in America hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there be none to discern it do plainly intimate that visible churchmembership is constituted by some qualification which is visible so that he ought thereupon to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore visible churchmembership is from some qualification sensible and is before the esteem in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ and though such esteem should not follow yet the person is a visible churchmember and therefore Mr. B. doth most unskilfully define a visible churchmember to be one that seems or is esteemed to be of the invisible Church For though this be and ought to be a consequent upon the other yet it is not the same but as I have shewed even according
children were broken off from the invisible Church in which the elect Jewes and their children who were elect in former ages were for the greatest part so the Gentiles believers and their children are graffed in Yet Mr. Sidenham himself pag. 75. confesseth a very great disproportion taking it as he doth for ingraffing into the visible Church For saith he there is this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jewes as natural branches and the engraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jewes good and bad were called branches now onely believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their children are ingraffed into that root Which is enough to shew that the Gentiles were not ingraffed into the root or tree as the Jews by natural descent but by calling of the Gospel and that the body of the Gentiles or any nation of the Gentiles is not ingraffed but so many as are called The ingraffing of the infant children with their parents into the visible Church by an outward ordinance is but his own dream and is overthrown by this that the Church Christian visible is not by descent but calling not national but Congregational by voluntary Covenant nor can the Churches called Independent hold this which Master Sidenham and Master Cobbet and others of their way hold that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the visible Church is sutable to that of the Jewes as being in their stead but they must hold a national Church whiâ—h quite overturns the frame of their Churches and the Reformation they contend for To his second argument the some that were broken off might be parents and children or parents and not children or children and not parents and of these there might be infants broken off without their own sin or their parents according to Gods good pleasure onely But of this I have said enough in answer to Mr. Geree and Mr. Baxter in the first part of this Review sect 4 6. The conclusion of the third argument is granted understood of ingraffing into the Church invisible not into the visible To the fourth that the fatness of the Olive should note priviledges and outward advantages such as this that the child should be visible Churchmember with the father in the Christian Church or that any other parent then Abraham should have a seminal vertue to convey such Church priviledge or fatness as the root mentioned Rom. 11.17 is a meer fancy nor is there any thing Ephes. 3.6 or any where else in Scripture for it To the objection That now believers are onely branches Abraham onely the roote and therefore the argument holds not If the parent be holy so is the childe being understood of other then Abraham and his seed hee answers That yet the branches well ingraffed become natural branches and receive as much from the roote as those which grew naturally on it so Gentile believers must have the same priviledge and that there are sprigges which grow out of branches which may bee termed immediate rootes But hee doth not shew that the Apostle or any wise man ever termed greater boughes of trees rootes to lesser neither dare hee say the Apostle meant every believing Father by the root Rom. 11.16 and therefore all this is impertinent to answer the objection which was to invalidate the inference concerning the holiness of every believers infant because the Apostle saith if the roote bee holy so are the branches because Abraham onely is the roote there As for Mr. Bls. saying I value it not it being without Scripture It 's sufficient for present to shew the insufficiency of Mr Bls. and Mr. Ss. proofes I pass on to vindicate my arguments from their pretended answers How the Dispute concerning the proof from Rom. 11.16 17. for infants of believing Gentiles visible Churchmembership and Baptism was brought to this issue Whether the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 into the Olive tree be meant of joyning a person to the invisible Church of the elect by giving faith according to electon so that none are ingraffed but true believers or elect persons as I assert is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 1. Mr. Bl. and Mr. Sydenham take on them to answer my arguments The first is That act of ingraffing to the Church which is made Gods act by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it hopeless and impossible without the intervention of his omipotency is and can be no other ingraffing then into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election But such is the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 as appears from v. 23. Ergo. Mr. Sydenham answers that to argue from Gods power to his will or to election or from his power in general to the putting it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is strange unsound in Divinity and reason But this is no answer For there is no such arguing made by me My arguing is none of those ways he mentions but from the ascribing the act to God as done by his sole power without which it were hopeless and impossible to prove that it is more then man by his ordinary power can do which can in this business be no other then the working of faith in the heart And this the Contraremonstrants thought sound arguing in the conference at the Hague and so do generally pleaders for irresistable conversion And Mr. Sydenham makes it like to the resurrection of the dead from v. â—5 which sure no act of man can perform But admission to the visible Church may be performed by men therefore the ingraffing cannot be admission into the visible Church but an higher act of giving faith according to election But saith he It is a work of mighty power to take away the prejudice against Christ in Jews and Gentiles to bring to outward confession To which I reply it is no such work but may be done by moral suasion of Orators or Preachers specially backt with the encouragement and commands of Kings and Emperours as experience hath often shewed therefore this cannot be all which is meant by the ingraffing But saith he It will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all nations To which I reply 1. The gathering them together into one place is not ingraffing them into the visible Church for ingraffing them imports joyning them to others but this gathering is a making them a distinct body of themselves the gathering into one place is accidental to their ingraffing iâ—to their own Olive he ingraffing may be without it and if they go together it is likely the ingraffing will be before that gathering and therefore that gathering and this ingraffing cannot be the same 2. That gathering may be by the power and favour of Emperors and Kings as it was by Cyrus his Proclamation heretofore in their return to Jerusalem and therefore is not this act of ingraffing
state out of which they were once cast but they were not cast out of the Church invisible not out of election and justification but out of a visible Churchstate and fellowship Breaking off as Mr. T. well saith is the same as casting away and reconciliation the same as ingraffing Their reconciliation or ingraffing is then into that condition from which they were broken out of which they were cast now they were cast out of the Church visible not out of the Church invisible when they were in a Churchstate they were nigh unto God Deut. 4.7 Psal. 148.14 Ephes. 2.17 Their reconciliation brings them into the same Churchstate which is a reconciliation gradual not total Answ. The casting away v. 15. is the same with the casting away v. 1 2. which is opposite to Gods fore-knowledge v. 2. to the election of grace v. 5. which obtained and the castaway were hardned or blinded v. 7 8 9 10. which he that understands of any other casting away then from the grace of election and effectual calling and the invisible Church seems to me to pervert the Apostles meaning very grosly Nor do I conceive it any absurdity to say that the Jewish people in Pauls time were broken off or cast away from that election and state in the invisible Church which they never had in their own persons but their ancestors had and they in course had obtained but for their unbelief As for the reconciliation in all places where he mentions it in his Epistles hee means it of that reconciliation which is by effectual conversion and justification through Christs death on which followes salvation Rom. 5.10 11. 2 Cor. 5.18 19 20. Col. 1.22 and not of Mr. Bls. gradual reconciliation of which hee hath not brought one instance for the use of the word in his sense nor is his example any thing like to the business in hand For it was not a reconciliation so as to bring them to the priviledges of a visible Churchstate but so to pardon the sin of worshipping the golden Calf as not utterly to destroy that people though the sinners fell in the Wilderness which was onely an abatement of punishment not an estating in priviledges as Mr. B. would have it But Mr. Bl. to my urging any one to shew mee in Scripture or any approved Protestant Writer such use of the word reconciliation as his is and my alledging Protestant approved Writers for my exposition thus saith 1. When Mr. T. pleaseth hee can heap up phrases which are onely once used in a select sense in Scripture and that to uphold his interpretation of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 when the context clearly evinces the contrary But that this is false and that the text clearly evinceth my interpretation is fully proved in the first part of this Review Section 22 c. Secondly saiâ—h hee Master T when hee pleases dare undertake the defence of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists and as unanimously opposed by Protestants as in that of Covenant holiness But this also is another of Master Bls. calumnies and unbrotherly taunts which hee frequently useth instead of answers and if there had been in him any candour of minde towards mee he had been satisfied with my answer in my postscript Sect. 13. But sith hee writes against me in a Cynical humour I pass by his snarlings and leave the cause to the Lord. Thirdly saith he Gomarus Tâ—m 1. p. 111. observes that world is taken in thaâ— sense in Rom. 11.12 15. as in no other Scripture But I think this is not true it is taken in the same sense 1 Tim. 3.16 and I think 2 Cor. 5.18 19. 1 Joh. 2.2 Fourthly saith he if recontiliation in no other place be so used yet little is gained seeing as wee have seen there are paralel phrases that hold out the same thing to us Answ. 1. Those paralel phrases were never yet seen by me 2. The thing is gained which is here contended for if reconciliation still signifie total reconciliation in the Scripture when it speakes of Gospel reconciliation and there is no cogent reason to move us to recede from that sense here and reconciliation be the same with ingraffing surely ingraffing is by giving faith according to election and the Church into which the ingraffing is is the invisible Mr. Bl. produceth a speech of Ravanelius which I have not for his sense But the words as hee produceth thâ—m seem not to mee to have that sense which Mr. Bl. alledgeth them for but rather my sense and a passage in the Annotations and another in Dr. Featley the Author of them on those Epistles But in neither doth Dr. Featley say by the reconciliation to God Rom. 11.15 is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Churchstate and by câ—sting away and breaking off a loss of visible priviledges nor do Peter Martyr or Eucâ—r say so And however I finde Protestant Writers do expound the ingraffing and breaking off in many of their writings of the visible Church yet those speeches which I alledged out of Mr. Ball and Dr. Ames are full to prove the reconciliation Rom. 11.15 to be saving and they that understand by breaking off there more then the loss of visible priviledges may notwithstanding Mr. Bls. censure without any shift in that point be acquitted from Arminianism My third arg was from v. 20. ingraffing must be by giving faith because it is by faith that the branch stands in the tree To this Mr. S. and Bl. both answer by granting the conclusion that it is by giving faith But this faith Mr. S. makes profession of faith Mr. Bl. a faith of profession To which I reply 1. If it were faith professed by which the branches stand in the tree yet infants are excluded from being of the branches for they stand not by faith professed 2. That it is not profession of faith or faith barely dogmatical which is meant Rom. 11.20 I prove 1. thus That standing which is a perseverance unto salvation is not by bare profession of faith but true justifying faith But the standing Rom. 11.20 is that standâ—ng which is a perseverance unto salvation ergo The major is manifest for it is not a bare profession of faith whereby a man perseveres to salvation but that which is justifying The minor is plain from the text The standing which is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity is standing by perseverance unto salvation This I presume will be yeilded direct opposite termes being according to Logick rules to bee understood in a direct opposite sense But the standing Rom. 1â— 20 is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity vers 2â— Ergo. 2. The standing which was to bee prevented by beeing not high minded but fearing and the losing of which was to bee feared is not a bare standing in the visible Church nor by bare profession of faith But the loss of the standing was to be feared and to be prevented by not being high minded but fearing
should rather think that the Text by him produced proves without any contradiction that the Covenant made Abraham the father of believers he is the called three Father of us all and a Text quoted for it which is Gen. 17.5 A Father of many nations I have made thee And whether that be not by vertue of Covenant let the context be consulted together with the Apostles words Rom. 4.11 He closed with God in Covenant and accepted the seal of the Covenant that according to Covenant he might be the Father of all them that believe Answ. 1. If Abel Enoch Noah be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying Heb. 11.4 5 6 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith then it is not true which Mr. Bl. â—aith a little before that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed onely in that which is external 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham and they are examples to us Pleb 6.12 Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abrahams and therefore none denoâ—inated the Fatâ—er of believers besides him 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abrahams faith and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made onely his eminent faith and the form denominating him is 〈◊〉 relation to them the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily 4. Rom. 4.11 It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant or of the seal of the Covenant but â— 16 the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all v. 17 18 19 20 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent and that as the reason of his Fatherhood Mr. Bl. to what I said the fatness of the Olive tree Diodati said truly is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed and so the Apostle expresseth Gal. 3.14 saith This we grant and priviledge of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation To which I reply The blessing Gal. 3.14 is jâ—stification v. 8 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith which a man may be without though he have the outward â—riviledge of ordinances and therefore are not contained in it Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith and therefore if the ingraffing be onely into the visible Church and a person have onely the priviledge of ordinances he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed Gal. 3.14 which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 and therefore the fatness is more then outward priviledges and ordinances and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17 But he argues thus That wherein the Jews exceeded the Gentiles is the fatness whereof the Gentiles partake when they are ingraffed instead of the Jews this none can deny for this makes them their equals and co partners But it is priviledges of ordinances how frigid and washy things soever Mr. T. little better then profanely makes it is the priviledge wherein Jews exceeded Gentiles Rom. 3.1 Deut. â— 7 8. Psal. 147.19 20. Therefore this is the fatness of the Olive Answ. The major is not true if universal and Mr. Bls. reason proves it For the Gentiles when ingraffed were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles All those things mentioned Rom 9.4 5. were prerogatives of the Jewes never imparted to the Gentile believers yea that priviledge mentioned Rom. 3.1 the committing the Oracles of God the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles nor the Tables of the Covenant and the Book of the Law to be kept as hee did to the Jews But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners was justification by faith and union with Christ by his spirit as Ephes. 3.6 Gal. 3.28 29 c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles ingraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 But this is not the priviledges of Ordinances but justification and oneness in Christ ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 To what I said that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews they being takâ— away hee saith if that of the Apostle bee true that the Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 then this cannot bee false If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness bee the same as that on which wâ— seed 1 Cor. 10.2 the outward priviledges of that people may well the 〈◊〉 the same with ours Answ. 1. If the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews be the same with ours then not onely the preaching the Gospel but also Circumcision the Passeover the Temple High Priest sacrifices c. must be the same to us as to them 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them yet not in the same manner it was preached to them â—s future to us as accomplished nor by the same ordinances not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb the High Priests going into the most Holy place with bloud once a year c. 3. Noâ— is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed 1 Cor. 10.3 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meate and drinke was signified by the Manna they ate and the water out of the Rocke which they dranke which is signified by the Bread and Wine wee receive in the Lords Supper But this doth not shew the same outward priviledges of the Jewes and us but the same spirituall benefits signified to them which are to us He next tels me I have taken pains for my own full refutation for if Abraham be the root then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off which he endeavours to prove from Rom. 9.2 3. 11.1 14. though the conclusion be not denied but oft asserted by me and then brings in Paul thus disputing Pauls kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible not invisible But Pauls kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off Ergo the Church visible not invisible was cut off Which conclusion doth not contradict any thing I assert who never made the Church invisible cut off but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
or sincere believers As for what he said before about the falling away of the ingraffed is answered before But Mr. Bl. yet adds There is a national pardon and a personal pardon iâ— oâ—t applied to a national return as 2 Chron. 7.14 Jerem. 18.7 8. there it is the removal of drought locusts pestilence here their judgement was the vail of blindness not assenting to the Gospel light and they shall be saved from this blindness as the Text expressly hath it v. 25 26. Answ. This blindness is no way removed but by giving of faith as is proved before and therefore this proves for me the ingraffing to be giving faith according to election and all the ingraffed to be elect Yet once more saith Mr. Bl. The words quoted out of v. 26 27. are partly from Isa. 59.20 and partly from Jerem. 31.34 as I conceive which in the Prophets are directly spoken of a national return and national pardon as Mr. B. of one of them hath well observed but in New Testament Scriptures variously applied as all know that text of Habakkuk is ch 2.4 That of Jeremy is applied personally but here as the context is clear it must bee applied nationally to Israel according to the flesh The vail shall be taken from them on whom it lies it lies on Israel according to the flesh what mystery had the Apostle revealed in case he had onely shewed that all elect bâ—lievers should be saved Answ. Though that were no mystery yet it was a mystery that God shouâ—d contrive it so that Israel Gods people formerly should now be blind and the Gentiles see and when their fulness is come in then all Israel should be saved who were then broken off And this salvation is to be national and yet spiritual there being a national effectual conversion to God although all of the nation be not converted as well as there is a national return from captivity and yet not all return The words being quoted from â—sai 59.20 Jer. 31.34 there being no reason to the contrary they shoulâ— be applied personally here as â—hey are Heb. 8.12 10. â—6 17. I shall close up the vindication of this argument with the words of Dr. Owen of perseverance Ch. 7. § 24. The force then of this promise Isa. 59. â—0 and the influence it hath into the establishment of the truth we have in hand the perpetual abiding of the spirit with the Saints will not be evaded and turned aside by affirming that it is made to the whole people of Israel For besâ—des that the spirit of the Lord could not bee said to bee in the ungodly rejected part of them nor his word in their mouth there is not the least in text and context to intimate such an extent of this promise as to the object of it and 't is very weakly attempted to bee proved from Pauls accommodation and interpretation of the v fore going in Rom. 11.26 For it is most evident and indisputable to any one who shall but once cast an eye upon that place that the Apostle accommodates and applies these words to none but onely those who shall be saved being turned away from ungodliness to Christ which are onely the seed before described And those hee cals all Israel either in the spiritual sense of the word as taken for the chosen Israel of God or else indefiniâ—ely for that nation upon the account of those plentiful fruits which the Gospel shall finde amongst them when they shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter dayes My seventh argument was If the re-ingraffing bee by vertue of Gods election and love his gifts of calling then it is into the invisible Church by election and giving of faith But the former is true v. 28 2â— Ergo the latter Mr. S. answers 1. It 's said that as touching election the Jews are beloved for their fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham Answ. It followes not of believing Gentiles and their natural seed for this is spoken peculiarly of the Jews Nor doth it follow of all the natural seed of Abraham the contrary is determined Rom. 9.6 7 8. nor of any at all times as in the time of their great Apostasie Much less doth it hence follow as it hath been pleaded for Paedobaptism that because God loved the Jews for the fathers sake therefore wee are to take in the parcels all the infants of inchurched believers to bee elect and in the Covenant of Grace and thereupon to baptise them this to my apprehension hath not a shadow of consequence But saith Mr. S. 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their recalling then of any nation but yet still the argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is onely or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing Answ. Yet the arg is of force to prove it is into the invisible Church so as none are re-ingraffed but the elect and partakers of inward graces though it were granted that their re-ingraffing be specially and firstly into the visible Church Yea Mr. Ss reason is against himself for if their re-ingraffing be not firstly and specially into the invisible Church by faith there wil be no correspondence between their re-ingraffing and rejection which was firstly and specially from the invisible Church by unbelief Mr. Bl. answers thus His election love and gifts of calling did at the first put them into a visible Churchstate and condition Deut. 7.7 8. And the same love election and gifts of calling now they are broken off doth re-ingraff them if this argument hold it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Aegypt Answ. According to Mr. Bl. the Apostle should mean that the election and love Rom. 11.28 are meant of such election and love as may be to them that perish and such a calling and gifts as may be lost for such the election into a meer visible Churchstate and condition and calling and love and gifts are which Mr. Bl. p. 302. will have to be the meaning of the Apostle here But this is not meant here 1. because that election love gifts and calling are here meant as are from the Covenant of the Redeemer v 26 27. and whereby all Israel shall be saved this is manifest from the connexion the words v. 28 29. being a confirmation of the proposition all Israel shall be saved v. 26. from the Covenant to turn away impieties from Jacob and to take
justified believers of all nations Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary For 1. though others faith might be as strong yet no ones faith was so â—minently exemplary the time and other circumstances considered and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith and promise and declaration of God which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives 1 Pet. 3.6 by her exemplary obedience to her husband and we are termed children of God by following him Ephes 5.1 wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts Joh. 8.44 It is true we are to look to other examples chiefly Christs Heb 12 1 2. yet none of meer men so eminently believed as Abraham and therefore no meer sinfull man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him As for Mr. Cs. reason it is not right For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as thâ— reason of the title 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his eleâ—tion as Mr. C. imagines then believing parents had not this blessing before whereas if there were such a blessing it was rather before then after Abrahams time for we find not any setled Ministery by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abrahams time therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents but after Abrahams time we read of Prophets and Apostles Priests and Teachers appointed to that end And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing then this was not perpetual and so the application of the seal to infants not moral sith the foundation of it begâ—n but in Abraham Sure I am this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxters conceit of infants visible Churchmembership by promise Gen. 3.15 which I leave to them to contend about What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abrahams seed given to believers is quite besides the Scripture Rom. 4.11 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39 And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another is true rather of others specially preachers of the Gospel then parents housholders Princes and I wish it were better considered by him whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto and that p. 38. not onely by common providence or so much by good education and example but by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise to all believers without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God do not cross the Apostles speech Ephes. 2.20 be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministery for conversion as being useless without assurance of Gods blessing God having provided another way and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise And how much this tends to justifie that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted is easily discernable But of this onely by the way What Mr. C. hath summed up p. 70. hath been examined and found to be a fardel of mistakes Let 's view the rest Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed priviledges wherein the Saints have rejoyced for so many ages wanted so much compassion on their children as not to blot their names out of Heaven or thrust them out of the Kingdome of Christ into the Kingdome of Satan have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries they would leave them But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence and thus he argues SECT LXXX Mr. Cs. conceit as if Gen. 17.9 were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain IF this be granted that the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. especially that part of iâ— v. 8. concerning Canaan to bee an everlasting possession to his seed bee of such extent and made also to his spiritual seed of the New Testament it will follow that that command of God in those words next following v. 9. is to bee meant also of his spiritual seed even in our dayes and as a command that now lieth upon the same spiritual seed in all generations in as much as that command is brought in with a therefore upon the promise made to the same seed in the words v. 8. Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed and the command v. 9 10 11 12 13.14 which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on but takes another way and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism he sums up his suppositions That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations that for confirmation of this hee added a seal to wit Circumcision that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant thereby that additional promise was sealed in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions and the connâ—xion between his additional promise and seal But in stead thereof as if all hee had before discoursed had been out of the way hee meant to take whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9 and the promise Gen. 22.17 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good he now goes another way to work and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abrahams seed ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word therefore v. 9. implies That precept ties onely to keep the Covenant by sealâ—ng with the seal of it their children v. â—0 explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it which is for substance the same and equivalent to it parents are
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise then it was a Covenant of works this he must grant unless he will have a mixt Covenant partly of grace and partly of works which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace but accâ—rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant But such was not that at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works Perkins on Gal. 4.24 Pemble of Justification sect 4. c. â— Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace yet to the carnal seed â—aith it was a Covenant of workes and proves it out of Paul And adds And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus tâ—ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat ult in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21 22 23 24. Hebr 8.6 9. Becman Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus Exod 19.5 Deut. 5.2 1 Reg. 8.21 Jer. 31.32 Heb 8.8 9 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic vindic p. 9. Mr. Baillâ—e in his Anabaptism pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls Mr. Ms. and others named and therefore rightly owned by me To my words Exam. p. 10 The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away v. 7. The ministration of condemnation v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Mr. M answers thus Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it In form it stands thus That which was the letter which killeth written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament and the spirit which giveth life the ministration of death of condemnation by Moses was the Law or Covenant of works for it is onely the Covenant of works not that of grace how darkly soever delivered of which these things can be said But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai Ergo. 'T is true it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone v. 3 7. which was the moral Law but above the Ministry of the whole Law which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise and not singly Moses ceremonies are by me termed the Covenant of works and of this I am still confident Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1 c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9 the spiritual part to belong onely to the invisible Church of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant but onely tels me the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy the children of God Deut. 14.1 to have the adoption Rom. 9.4 were not inwardly holy or effectually called which I readily grant nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4 Deut. 14.1 were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed having not denied it but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4 that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have and thence gathered that is a feeble reason from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision to prove infant Baptism yet nothing that Mr. M brings shews 1 Pet. 2.9 to bee meant of any other then the elect nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged What he saith that the comfortable manner of administration and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision to females and all nations is granted but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28 the words there is neither male nor female are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not for then neither bond nor free should be added for the same reason which had not been right for bondmen were circumcised formerly as well as then baptized But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ and therefore that passage is meant onely of true believers Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th conclusion I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus 1. It is no good argument God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too without Gods institution but arrogant presumption to claim it 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull Mary the Mother of CHRIST no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon by saying These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons not the whole Church of the Jewes nor from the Covenant but that to have infants belong to his Church and to have the initial seal are and if that we have it not for ours the
visible Church how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8 And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it a remote right to the initiatory seal but it doth not give an immediate right thereto for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onely giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order as of old strangers might not be circumcised but with some submission to that Church order explicitely or implicitely and so now and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th section determines to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized how do those of N. E. admit to breaâ—ing of bread those who who onely as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy without another baptism That either Matth. 28.19 20. or any where else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church is more then I finde nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might bee hindered from Baptism for trial for a time much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of thâ—m if their right were as Mr. C. doth though falsly imagine Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put 1. I shall endeavour yet fuâ—ther to confiâ—m it that covenanâ— interest carrieth a main stroak in point of application of that seal to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress or as I conceive the whole stress of the main case is put should have been delivered more clearly and confirmed more fully but as now it is it is delivered ambiguously and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism but the proofs following shew that he meant it of Circumcision and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism and so the Reader merely mocked The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to Gods applâ—ing it by way of command or mans by way of administration and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory sometimes meant of Gods application by way of command and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing The phrase of carrying the main stroak is likewise ambiguous and so delusory it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it And when he terms it the main stroak it had been requisite hee should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroak if not the main yet so great as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to bee applied Hee might have understood by my Examen which he had to answer that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that hee did not more distinctly tell what hee meant by the Covenant being in covenant which hee speaks of infants of believers And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly as one that sought truth and to shew my errour he should have cleared what Covenant hee meant inward or outward the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered or the mixt Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is how the Covenant of grace is invested with it when a Church is a political visible body how a Church covenant is the form of it who and what persons and how they are interested in it whether by Gods promise their own faith or profession or anothers or by the Churches admission All which or at least many of them are requisite to bee distinctly declared that a reader may clearly understand his meaning and so examine his proof And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect be meant onely because of the females circumcision or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings is and will be found the onely way of baptizing appointed by Christ is uncertain This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this which should be his meaning if he spake to his purpose That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace in that he is a believers child by vertue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit is a sufficient warrant to that visible political Church to admit and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God or profession of the infant Let 's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this First saith he then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seal and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing as circumcision and baptizing Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain Gen. 17.9 10. is no other Law but about circumcision the word rendred therefore may bee otherwise translated if it were the onely reading yet the sense might be this because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by mee much more is it a dotage to assert that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it as Mr. C. conceives so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church Secondly saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the form of a political visible Church body giving therefore both a Church-being as I may say as natural forms do a natural being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a church-body suitable to its memberly estate as if this of the Church initiatory seal even to the least member thereof although they are not
yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites do not deny that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such so that till that bee they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion and to submit to their rulers and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons who otherwise would bee unsetled in a fixed estate of communion yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be 2. That the Covenant of grace whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant that is as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be together with it is the form of a visible political Church which gives it the being of such a Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or Church power In which I conceive are many mistakes 1. That the Sacraments are seals or church dispensations are committed to the Church which are not committed to the Church which consists of men and women but to the guides and over-seers of it 2. That Church power or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes Matth. â—6 19 or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church but to the guides and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poliâ—ical Church they are not fit for church dispensations or censures which I conceive not true there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant as Mr. C. describes Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19 to be onely in and with such a Church nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition but rather the contrary 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned give the being of such a visible Church political But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being it is a promise of something future and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas but assures it shall bee by some cause in act which in this thiâ—g is the calling of God from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member as Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political though they should be dissolved the next hour and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church nor as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard of a pure Church but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted that they may not divide and scatter from each other but may continue in communion 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other and without tht Church covenant they can have no power But neither do I conceive this true For the power whiâ—h christians have is to reprove admonish censure shun society chuse officers reject false teachers c. this power they have by the laws of Christ without a church covenant 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these 1 Cor. 3.22 10.17 12.13 3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seal But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy and then joyn them us members by church covenant now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal then they should first enter into church covenant and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized 4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal and other church power But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17 1 Cor. 12.13 and have church power as others of their sex and rank Now all these suppositions though they were granted except the last would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion namely the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him infants making no such Church covenant nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread and other power
of a member and bee taken for a member hee must himself enter into church covenant Thirdly saith Mr. C even in doubtfull cases where the extent of the command is questionable yet interest in the Covenant casts the scoals As for instance in strangers which proved religious albeit not of their family servants and so under the Law Gen. 17.12 13. they might be circumcised if they desired other Church ordinances c. yet were they else free unless in such a case of their own desire that way Exod. 12. end Hence Cornelius a godly Gentile living near the Jews yet not circumcised Acts. 10.1 2 3 4. compared with chap 11 3 14 15 18. yea but if the command bound them why were they circumcised suppose Exod. 12. gave some liberty to the Church guides that way for such strangers as more usually dwelt amongst them yet such as 1 Kings 8.41 42 43. which came from far in a mere transient way for some temporary religious worship at the Temple as that proselyted Eunuch Acts 8.27 those were surely circumcised else how admitted to Temple worship Since that was counted an abomination for any other so much as to come there Acts 21.28 and if circumcised at any time by any of the godly Church guides consent what gave them right to it not the commandment Gen. 17.12 13 14. no nor that Exod. 12. What was that to an Eunuchs case and others which never sojourned with them for any space were they then unlawfully circumcised No verily no whisper of that in Scripture God allowed of that passage in Solomons prayer touching the strangers Temple service 1 Kin. 8. 9. explained It was then their external interest in Gods Covenant which gave rise to that application of the seal and not the commandment contrary to what some say that not the Covenant but the commandment of God onely was the ground of Circumcision Answ. That which I said in my Exercit. p. 4. Hence I gather first that the right to Evangelical promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods prceept as is expressed Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 Secondly that those terms are not convertible federate and to be signed and in my Examen p. 38. that nothing but Gods will manifest in his institution can be a warrant about Circumcision p. 97. that the Jews received Circumcision as appointed them from God under this formal reason and no other I have shewed before to have been acknowledged by Mr. M. in his Defence p. 92. when he said The command is the cause of the existence of the duty and p. 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God Nor is it at all infringed by this reasoning of Mr. C. Those that were not bound without their desire to eat the Passeover and so not to be circumcised yet if they would eat the Passeover they were bound by an express command to be circumcised Exod. 12.48 49. whether their sojourning was constant or for a time onely which likely was the case of the Eunuch Act. 8 27. who it 's probable was circumcised because there is no mention of the baptizing any uncircumcised till Cornelius though there be no certainty whether the Eunuch were a Jew by birth or a proselyte of the Gentiles or whether he formerly had his constant abode among the Jews either in Palaestina or elsewhere or whether then he did sojourn among the Jews then in Aethiopia But if he were a meer proselyte of the gate yet he might come to the Temple into the Court of the Gentiles to worship as all acknowledge Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple service ch 1. Mr. Mede Diatr on Act. 17.4 c. And therefore there is no proof from hence that a person was circumcised by reason of the Covenant and not of the command Yea though Cornelius were in the Covenant of grace and had external Covenant interest in that he was known to worship the true God yet was he not by reason thereof bound by God or taken by the Jews as one that was bound to be circumcised or ever blamed for want of it which shews that neither was the Covenant interest indeed nor taken by the Jews for the warrant or rule or reason of circumcising but the command of God Fourthly saith Mr. C. it appears from the nature of an initiatory seal of the Covenant which must be as large as the Covenant and so reach all the parties comprehended actually by vertue of Covenant according as such children are as before declared especially since it is the seal of Gods people and visible Church as before shewed given first for the Church in giving of Pastours and Teachers onely to the Church which alone can administer the seals in ordinary dispensations Matth. 28. end and giving them withall to the Church as from her to be dispensed by her Officers to such as desire the same Answ. In stead of proofs here is a heap of dictates 1. That Baptism is the initiatory seal of the Covenant in its nature 2. That it must be as large as the Covenant 3. That Pastours and Teachers given onely to the Church can alone administer the seals in ordinary dispensations Matth. 28.19 20. 4. That the seals are given to the Church as from her to be dispensed by her Officers to such as desire the same None of which will be yeelded by me without better proof then I yet meet with Sure Matth. 28.19 10. yeelds no proof for any of them It proves Baptism was to be administred by the Apostles not every seal by Church Officers He goes on Now God people are known either by actual profession and confession of their own as adults are or by Gods promise and by parents avouching God as theirs in Covenant and their childrens Gen. 17.9 10. thou shalt do thus and thus and thy seed also to which he submitteth afterwards and so his also with him and after him Answ. That Gods people are known by Gods promise and by parents avouching God as theirs in Covenant and their childrens is another dictate which Mr. C. brings not a shew of proof for out of the New Testament nor doth that which he brings from Gen. 17.9 10. prove it concerning the infants of the Jewish Church For though there be a command to Abraham and his posterity to circumcise and this is termed keeping Gods Covenant yet there is not a word of parents profession or Gods promise as making known who are Gods people no not in the Jewish Church in which there were many to whom God made no promise nor parents avouched for them who were known as Gods people by vertue of Gods taking the whole nation for his Church even when the Kings and people were Idolaters But if it were true that it were as Mr. C. would this proves nothing concerning the people of God in the Christian Church in which none are known to be Gods people but by their own confession of saith But Mr. C. adds
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
though it did not necessarily follow on that usâ— For there might be Gossips without such opinion as there might be transubstantiation without adoration yet as the nature of superstition is to adde one humane invention to another and the laâ—ter worse then the former and the just judgement of God leaves men to err when their fear of him is taught by the precepts of men Isa. 20.13 14. as I have shewed in my Sermon intituled The leven of Pharisaical willâ—worship so it happened both in Baptism and the Eucharist infant Baptism brought in Gossips they were taken for parents thence conceived to be of such affinity that their copulation would be incestuous and so in the Eucharist the opinion of the Lords Supper as if Christs body were in the bread begat Transubstanâ—iation that kneeling and adoration which have more connexion then a rope of sand or pebles in a Wyth notwithstanding Dr. Homes his conceit and Straâ—o's words need better answer then he gives All that Dr. Homes p. 161 162 163 164 165. saith against my allegation of Cluniacensis doth not either prove that Peter de Bruis did not deny infant Baptism or that Cluniacensis did not alledge Augustine for it and de Bruis rejected it and appealed to the Scriptures though I have acknowledged in my Apology sect 8. my mistake about the words of the ignorance of Greek and the mention of the Greek Church and the Council of Arles For why should Cluniacensis say Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis c. but that Augustine was wont to be urged against them but they rejected him and appealed to the Gospel As for Peter de Bruis and Henricus their opinions I set them down as I found them reckoned in the argument of Cluniacensis Epistle not thinking fit to set down all that Cluniacensis chargeth them wiâ—h having by Mr. Gatakers Defence of Mr. Wottoâ— against Mr. Walker concerning Abailardus learnt how uncertain Bernards charge was against him and the like perhaps against Peter de â—ruis and Henricus by Cluniacensis in some things yet I have given reasons concerning their denying infant Baptism in my praecursor sect 9. to which Mr. Baxter hath no made reply in his praefestin mor. to avoid them though he had most unchristianly accused me of impudence and unconscionableness for alledging them as adveâ—saries to infant Baptism What I said of the Councils that condemned Palagianiâ—m and the Drs. who refuted it that they followed Augustin I did in some mistake as in putting Arles for Orange a City near and perhaps in something else being at that time without all my ptinted books which I had read before the year 1642. in which I was plundered of them and wrote my Examen in London anno 1644. and my Exorcitation anno 1643. But I had some remembrance of my reading to that purpose which I imagin was by reaâ—ing the words of Dr. â—rideaux in his 3d. Lecture de Gratia universali which are thus to the same effect Augustinus qui praecipuè sudabit in hoc argumento quomqâ—e Prosper Fulgentius Scholastici saniores sequuntur imò ex ejus scriptis decreta Concilii Aransicani 2 contra Pelagianos Semipelagianos ut ipse agnoscit Binnius contâ—xuntur sit vice omnium And for Augustins being counted one of the four Doctors of the Church esteemed like the four Evangelists the speech as I remember of Gregory the Great is so rife that I presume it unknown to few Students in Divinity Nevertheless I said I for my part value Augustines judgement just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh of which Dr. Homes saith that 's well but Mr. Marshal saith I slight him which is an unjust crimination of me neither Augustin nor any other writer being not imediately inspired requiring or deserving any higher regard and Protestant writers frequently in their determinations ascribe authentique authority onely to the holy Scripture Ames Bellarm. enerv tom 2 l. 1. c. 3. asserâ—tur â— nobis Episcoporum in concilio sententiam tantâ—m inquisitionem quandam esse dictionem sententiae ministratoriam limitatam ita ut tantâ—m valeat decretum concilii quantùm valeat ejus ratio which if right my speech is unblameable Nor am I to be blamed for not canvassing every particular testimony alledged out of Augustine it being not denied he held infant Baptism at that time and in such a manner as Protestants reject and how much credit is to bee given to his speeches of Apostolical tradition is considered before section 88. Protestant writers do often charge Augustin with doting in this point of infant baptisms necessity whereof some speeches may be seen in Mr. Gataker de bapt infant vi effâ—c sect 6. num 27. sect â— num 35. and for my part I must say that I judge his reasons so light and his proofs so vain that the testimonies out of Augustine do very much confirm me that infant Baptism is an errour and a very pernicious abuse needfull to be taken away out of the Church of God the reason of which may in some measure appear by my vindication of my exceptions against Augustines judgement 1. If infant Baptism had been such an universal and Apostolical tradition as Augustine would have it then the Church would have thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their infancy and the custome would have been so used But that it was not so appears first from the baptism of Augustine Adeodatus Alipius second from other observations set down in my Examen p. 14. The testimonies Mr. M. brings for universal practise have been considered before Hee adds p. 45. of his Defence That Epiphanius in the end of his work relating what was generally observed in the Church tels us The baptism administred in the Church in his time was performed according to the tradition of the Gospel and the authority of the Apostles as well as other mysteries then in use and we know that in his time Baptism was administred to infants therefore in his judgement what the Church did therein they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles But there is more reason to conceive that either he knew no infant Baptism or that he took it to be an aberration from the Gospel tradition and authority of the Apostles not onely in that he mentions not infant Baptism but also in Ancorato where he sets down the use of Baptism he saith Yee ought not onely to suffer every one instructed in the faith and willing to come to the holy laver that he shew himself to your sons that he believes in the Lord but also that with uttered words as the same mother of all your and our Church hath received he teach and say I believe in one God the Father Almighty c. Whence the Magdeburgenses cent 4. c. 6. de ritibus circa Baptismum say It is conjectured
by their inveighing against deferring â—aptism I answer 1. That I have not been mistaken appears by that which goes before 2. They speak not against deferring infants Baptism but for it though they speak against the deferring it by the aged 4. To what I said of their opinion of the necessity of and practise of infant Communion he saith All did not so though some of the Affricans did I answer The chiefest of them and some of them Europaeans held it Dr. Field 3d. book of the Church ch 1. saith According to the old custome used in the primitive Church the Greeks minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptise them And Ortelius in his Theat where he describes the Abissins in Affrica saith To all the baptised the same moment they minister the holy Eucharist 5. â—o what â— said of their baptizing infidels children he saith It was not their constant and general practise But it appâ—ars not but that it was practiâ—ed and alâ—owed of as well as the other 6. To my words that the ancientest testimony for prâ—ctise according to any rule determined is Cyprian near 300 years after Christ he saith he must needs take notice of my overlashing and I reply â— must needs take notice of his overlashing in again mentioning Justin Marâ—yr as a witness though the book be but suppositioâ—s and Irenaeus when â—e saith nothing of it and Origen who is dâ—ubtfull and Tertullian who is against it and excepting against my words as overlashing wâ—en the first determination of it in any Councel was that of Cyprian with hiâ— 66. Bishops which as Dr. Hammond saith was anno 257. near 3â—0 years after Christ. 7. To my words that infant Baptism was not from the beginning Austins semper habuit semper tenuâ—t is opposed to which how little credit is to be given is shewed Apol. § 16. heâ—e sect 8â— and in thiâ— before 8. â—o my alledging the proposal of the questions of repentance and faith to infants as a sign that none but those who answered the â—uâ—stioâ—s were formerly baptized it is said This supposeth these questions to be of as ancient use in the Church of God as Baptism iâ—self whiâ—h certainly you can never prove from Scripture I have produced testimonies for infant Baptism afore any you can bring to witness that those forms of questions and answers had any being in the Church But I think the question of faith plâ—inly proved Act 8. â—7 to be anâ—ecedent to Baptism and the words of Beza annot on 1 Pet. 3 21. are thus Yet to me more nearly now considering the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth seâ—m better to agree that we interpret it stipulation and that we say the Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the caâ—echised even then did testifie their more inward Baptism to be confirmed by the outward as Act. 8.37 to which the whole Apostolick Creed looks and that from the Baptism of adult persons by a great errour if we look to infants themselves translated to the Baptism of infants Doest thou believe I do believe Doest thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as if it were in stead of a Commentary on this place in his Book of the Resurrection of the flesh the soul is not confirmed or sanctified by washing but by answering Tertullian de corona militis Aquam adituri ibidem sed aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub antisâ—itis manu contestamur nos renunciare Diaâ—olo pompae angelis ejus Dehinc ter inergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit Grot. in Mat. 28.19 proves the profession of faith out of Justin Martyr who saith expresly Apol. 2. That the baptised did promise to â—â—ve according to the Christian Doctrine and out of â—gnatius Irenaeus Tertullian c. what they answered who weâ—e baptiseâ— In the Councel of Basil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Rag sium it is said In principio hujus sacramenti baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere The testimonies of this kind are so â—any that I think it superfluous to alledge them The very form of Common Prayer in propounding thâ—se questions as they were in Augustines time to infants is evidence enough of the antiquity of that custome of propounding questions to the baptized 9. To what I said of the examples of Greg Nazian Chrysos Augus Const the Great to whom I might have added Hierome of whom Erasmus in his life testifies of his birth of Christian parents yet not baptized till of age Mr. M. answers by referring to what is said before And I intreat the Reader to look back to what I say before sect 89 90. and this 10. In like manner the evidences against infant Baptism from Tertullians and Gregory Nazianzen disswasion the testimony of the Councel of Neocaesaria the silence of Eusebius Epiphanius Athanasius the constant terming it an Apostolical tradition are referred to what is before said by Mr. M. and by me to my answers to him and others in those Sections and sect 88. For Grotius what reason I had to alledge him may be easily discerned by those that know his aâ—ilities Censura censurae was unknown to me as yeelding me any advantage 〈◊〉 Mr. M. here minded me of that book What Vives speaks he had good evidence for as in part may be seen in what is said before Strabo's testimony is such as Vossius his exception doth not weaken but is sundry ways confirmed here That I could have brought more testimonies it hath appeaâ—ed in part by this writing and in part by my Praecusor sect 20 and my answer to Dr. Savage in Latine sect 13. The more I search iâ— to the point of antiquity the more I am confirmed in my position that infant Baptism is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late innovation Nor am I alteâ—ed from the opinion I had that none before Zuinglius taught infant Baptism as a priviledge of believers children from federal holiness Tertullians and Athanasius his words serve not turn to prove it nor Epiphanius Cyprian Nazianzen Augustine or Chrysostome so taught it from Circumcision as due to them by vertue of the Covenant to a believer and his seed but in other manner as is before shewed Nor doâ—h the Pelagians acknowledgement serve Mr. Ms. â—urn therein The more testimonies Mr. M. might have added had added no more weight to the cause then those he alledged have done I did not charge the Ancients that they held that all who died unbaptised were damned but that in the case of infants born they taught that if they died unbaptized they should not enter into the Kingdome of Heaven but perish or be damned though with the mildest damnation And this is manifest enough from Cyprians Epistle to Fidus and very many places of Augustine Tertullian l. de Bapt. c. 12. Câ—m verò prascribitur nemini
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâ—ents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâ—g 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â— no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
the ingraffing of the Gentiles What hee saith yet they shall be ingraffed as a visible Church and this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church taking as reduplicatively cannot bee true for then every visible Church should have all in it saved and for the reasons he brings to prove they are answered before the fathers are nor mentioned as roots but Abraham who is a root not of the visible Church aâ— such but of the invisible of true believers and they are ingraffed as the other were broken off from the invisible Church Mr. Bl. saith This arg well husbanded might have made three to the first I say that a Churchstate in Scripture phrase is salvation Job 4.22 seeing Churchmembers are partakers of saving ordinances And the fruition of ordinances under Gospel dispensations is a great salvation Heb. 2.3 And so that text Rom 11.26 And so all Israel shall be saved must be understood as I told Mr. T. p. 67. of my answer out of the last annotations and so Diodate Answ. This then is the meaning of Rom. 11.26 All Israel shall bee saved that is they shall be in a visible Churchstate partakers of saving outward ordinances under Gospel dispensations But can Mr. Bl. or any sober man think this to be the meaning they shall be saved that is they shall be in such an estate in which they may bee damned and in which many are damned or that God where hee mentions the effect of his his great Covenant of the Gospel means no more but such an estate Is this all or any part of the new Covenant Heb. 8 10 c. Heb. 10.16 17. to have a meer visible Churchstate I did alwayes think the Covenant of Grace had promised the spirit of Christ thâ—t the Ministery thereof was of the spirit 2 Cor 3.6 8. of righteousness v. 9. not of a meer visible Churchstate And sure if we look to the place whence these words are quoted as Mr. â—l saith Isai. 59.20 Jerem. 31.34 there is an express promise of the spirits continuance upon them which is sure much beyond a visible Churchstate As for what he brings out of Scripture it is shamefully wrested For Joh. 4.22 a meer visible Church-state is not termed salvation but whether by it bee meant by a metonymy the doctrine of salvation or the authour of salvation Christ himself it is certainly another thing then a meer visible Churchstate yea in that sense the speech were absurd to term a meer visible Church-state salvation and false to say thaâ— the visible Churchstate was of the Jewes And for the other text â—eb 2.3 it doth not term the fruition of outward Ordinances under Gospel dâ—spensations great salvation but the great benefit purchased by Christ termed eternal salvation Heb. 5.9 declared and offered in the Gospel Diodati annot on Heb. 2. â— So great namely everlasting redemption revealed and communicated by the Gospel and implâ—citely opposed by the Apostle to the temporal deliverance out of Egypt for the contemning of which the Israelites were punished in the wilderness And though the new Annot. and Diodati paraphrase Rom. 11.26 by put into the way of salvation yet they do not restrain this to a meer visible Churchstate yea both add that by all Israel may be understood the Israel of God Gal. 6.16 of Jews and Gentiles which is the invisible Church And Diâ—son thus parapâ—raseth the words And so all Israel that is the multitude of Jews comprehending the body of the people dispersed shall be converted And Piscator in his Scholie The fulness of Israel shall be saved to wit being effectually called by the preaching of the Gospel and justified by faith in Christ. But what is said of all Israel is not to be extended to each but to be understood of the greatest part from which the denomination is wont to be made Mr. Bl adds And such men brought into a Churchstate are turned from iniquity partially from their former way of iniquity their contradicting and blaspâ—eming having escaped the pollution of the world 2 Pet. 2.6 of the world â—hat remains out of the Church of God Answ. 1 Were this the meaning yet infants should be excluded who are not thus turned 2. That such a partial turning cannot be meant is manifest in that the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ungodlinesses that is all sorts of ungodliness from Jacob that is as Piscator in his scholie by pardoning or remitting and justifying by faith and this to be done by the redeemer which shall come out of Sion who so turns from iniquity as to bless them whom he turns Acts. 3.26 which doth not agree to Mr. Bls. partial turning More rightly Diâ—son thus paraphraseth the words He foretelleth that so it should be that the true redeemer should free his nation from the guilt and servitude of sin the iniquities of that people being pardoned and that it should be that he would receive them into the Covenant of grace to the full abolishing of sin But saith Mr. Bl. Their sin is pardoned quoad hoc and when Moses prayed for the pardon of the sin of Israel Exod. 32. and God promiseth it 2 Chron. 7.14 it is so to be understood of a national pardon Answ. A partial pardon quoad hoc of some particular sin and releasing onely of some particular evil cannot be meant Rom. 11.26 27. sith it is a taking away of their sins by the agency of the redeemer that comes out of Sion and according to Gods Covenant to them which 1. the same with that Jer. 31 33. Heb. 8.12 10.16 17. in which eternal redempâ—ion and inheritance are assured Heb. 9.12 15. I grant it shal be a nationaâ— pardon understanding by nation the greatest or chiefest part of the nation but different from the pardon obtained by Moses Exod. 32. or promâ—sed 2 Chron. 7.14 To what I said in answer to Mr. Geree that I thought at the Jews restauration there shall be some of them formalists and hypocrites but none of the re-ingraffed Mr. Bl. replies The re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes and therefore were hypocriâ—es and formalists and the ingraffed such as might fall which is not spiritual Israel but carnal But the Text doth not say the Jews shall be re-ingraffed in their shead that sell away by multitudes but onely that the Gentiles be graffed into the Olive in stead of the Jews broken off v. 17. and the Jews shall be re-ingraffed when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and both be ingraffed together not the one broken off to make room for the other as in the calling of the Gentiles v. 19. Yet were it so as Mr. Bl. saith how doth it follow the re-ingraffing here is in their stead that fell away by multitudes Ergo the re-ingraffed were some of them formalists and hypocrites I conceive it follows rather on the contrary those that fell away were hypocrites therefore they that are ingraffed in their stead are living branches
that Author to be afore the 3d. century and consequently not that Dionysius the Arâ—opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet med Patrum l. 11. c 9. Perkins prepar to the demonstr of the probleme 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photius which for want of books I cannot examine yet Salmasius ad Colâ—ium saith p 1â—9 quamvis subdititius ille Dionyâ—â—us Areopagita sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi And that which Scultetus ubi supra observâ—s that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples of â—ltars of Holy places of a Quiâ—e of consecration of Monks of the tonsure and shaving of heads iâ— me thinks a good argument that the Author was somâ— idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th century and is so far from being accâ—unted a Wâ—iter of esteem among Divines that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity 3. Whether those who deemed infanâ— baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it or Christians who scrupled it is noâ— câ—eared by the Dr. Nor is it aâ—pareâ—t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. Bâ—t if it were that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition if he did he would â—ave alledged some Scripture for iâ— and the words our Divine Officers being instructed not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition but unto or of the old tradition have brought down unto us do shew that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages infant baptism and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author Pamelius annot 89. on Cyprian de lapsis Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo suprâ— indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum qualem etiam indicaâ—e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem All which being consideâ—ed this testimony is so far from being a most convinciâ—g â—estimoâ—y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostleâ— â—hat considering upâ—n what ground they observed it and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes and fathering them on the Apostles and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more froâ—â—he Apostles then infant communion both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th Oration about baptism in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants which saith Dr. Hammond is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time the 4 th century about the year of Christ 70. he flourished and died in the year 389. Against this sundry things are objected 1. that the same Author saith as I find his words in Chamier paustr. cath tom 4 l. 5. c. 9. § 66. where he gives instance in his 40th Oration of baptism of those who decease without baptism Neither can they receive it either perhaps by reason of infancy or some altogether involuntary chance by which it is that even they who would obtain not that gift From whence it is manifest that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons For the words of Nazianzen shew that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unvoluntary accident whether by the hand of God or men so others he saith deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely by reason of infancy and that by reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it Which is a plain testimony that however in câ—se of apparent daâ—ger of death then infants miâ—ht receive baptism according to his opinion yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it and so did sometimes die without it 2. It is objected and thereby this observation is confirmed that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it that they might not miss of the common grace intimating thâ—t otherwise they should 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waitiâ—g is that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing may be taught to answer somewhat and if they understand not fully perfectly and exaâ—â—ly yet they are instructed and informed 4. That not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing 1 Cor. 7.14 by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies for if this were good reading 1. they should baptize themselves 1. they should bapâ—ize â—heir souls which were ridiculous but so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not 2 that it sanctifies their bodies 3. that it is beâ—ter done when children are taught to answer 4. then they sanctifie soulâ— and bodies 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of inâ—ants 6. that without baptism infants should misâ— oâ— the common 〈◊〉 To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus 1. It is clear that it no way prejudgâ—s â—he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down 〈…〉 him that infant children indefinitely considered might be bâ—ptized and if dangâ—r apprâ—acâ—ed must how young soever they were which is as contrary to the Anâ—ipaedobaptist and so to Mr. T. as any thing Answ. 1. The phrase the doctrine and practise of the Church is according to the Prâ—latical language I think as
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that