Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

And, saith Mr. B. if they were all to be kept out of the Church, I scarce think that [children would be called an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward, ] Psal. 127.3. nor the man happy that hath his quiver full of them. Nor would the sucking children be called as part of the solemn assembly to the humiliation, Joel 2.16. 2 Chron. 20.13.

Answ. Children may be an heritage of the Lord, and his reward, though they be not visible Church members, as the land of Canaan was an heritage, Psal. 135.12. and he may be happy that hath many of them, with that happiness which is mentioned in the forepart of the 15th. v. of Psal. 144. though they be no Church members: And yet the infants of the Israelites I acknowledge were members of that Church or people, and that the Psalmist speaks of them. And so do the Texts, Joel 2.16. 2 Chron. 20.13. though the assembling of them do no more prove them visible Church members, then the clothing of beasts with sackcloth, Jonah 3.7, 8. doth prove the beasts Church members, it being usual in such national fears and humiliations to have all whatsoever to be among the mourners, whether Church members or not; as the men of Tyre were forced by Nehemiah, ch. 13.19. to rest on the Sabbath.

Mr. B. adds.

Answ. It is a standing promise or observation: But that all his children are blessed, or that they are visible Church members, much less that there is a promise or law that all visible Church members infants should be visible Church members cannot be thence inferred. That without the Church a person is pronounced blessed is apparent from Ishmael's blessing, Gen. 17.20, 21. when he was excluded the Covenant and cast out.

Yet more saith Mr. B.

Answ. It is no good argument, Because God loving the fathers of the Israelites chose their seed after them, therefore he chooseth the seed of every righteous man to be his people, or that he showeth favor to them. The contrary is manifest in Lot, Job, and others, whose posterity God shown not favor as he did to the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whereof the former is termed God's friend, James 2.23. and it is certain from Rom. 9.4, 5. & 11.28. that God did and will show them that favor that he never did nor will show to the posterity of any the most godly persons of other nations. What is said, Psal. 69.36. is said only of the obedient Israelites ; and if it be extended to others, it can be meant only of those tha • love the Name of God, and therefore makes nothing for the visible Church membership of infants of believers either by profession or real. Whether it be read, delivereth himself, as Junius, or shall be delivered, it is neither universally true, as is manifest in the posterity of David, Josiah, and others; nor is any whit to the point of infants visible Church membership, which may be without it, and that may be without it. Nor is Mr. Bs. inference good, In Psal. 37.26. there is a general promise to, or declaration of the righteous, that [his seed is blessed,] and then they are Church members : For the Text neither speaks generally of any righteous man, but of him that is merciful and lendeth, and the v. before showeth it plainly to be meant of outward blessing, as in freedom from extreme want of bread, and the like, which must have its limitations that it may be true; there's not a word of their infant visible Church membership.

There's yet a reserve of Mr. B. which he thus marshals.

Answ. Be it so, yet is it all impertinent to Mr. Bs. purpose. If Isai 61.8, 9. be a promise of a thing to be fulfilled in Gospel times, yet it cannot be meant of infants, since it is affirmed that the seed shall be known among the Gentiles, that is, saith Mr. Gattaker in his Annot. They shall so grow and multiply, thrive and prosper, that they shall become very conspicuous, Matth. 5.14, 16. and that it shall evidently appear to all that see them, that there goeth a blessing of God along with them, Acts 5.13. Which are spoken of the Apostles and their preaching, not of infants and their Church membership, Isai 62.12. is said of Zion and Jerusalem, v. 1.11. and is thus by Mr. Gattaker in his Annot. paraphrased. And men shall call them (to wit Zion's sons or those that belong to her, and shall now again people her, verse. 5.) The holy people, the redeemed of the Lord] Such as God by rescuing and delivering them out of the hands of so powerful adversaries, in so strange a manner, hath shown that he owneth for his. Sought out] or, sought unto, or sought after, as one had in high estimation and regard; whom out of respect and regard men repair and resort unto. See Psal. 111.2. Contrary to that which was formerly said of thee in the time of thy low and dejected estate, Jer. 30.17. A City not forsaken] as she seemed to be formerly in the time of her captivity. See v. 4. Which shows these things are meant of the Jews safety and honor after their return from captivity, not of infants visible Church membership under the Gospel. Yet if it were a prophesy of the Gospel times, it follows not infants shall be visible Church members because Cities comprehend infants. For in the Gospel sense, Nation, House, City, comprehend only believers, and not infants of believers, as such, as appears from these and other texts. Gal. 6.10. Ephes. 2.18, 19. 1 Pet. 2.5, 9. Isa. 65.23. is a prophesy of the welfare of the Jews after their return from captivity, as v. 21, 22. before show, and the meaning is as Mr. Gataker, Diodati and others expound it, they shall not bring forth children as formerly to be consumed by war, pestilence and such evils, because God's blessing, which makes rich, healthy, safe, prosperous, is with them and their children: which sense is quite wide from Mr. Bs. conceit of a law of infants visible Church membership in the time of the Gospel.

He yet adds, What is necessary to be said in answer to the common objections, as [that experience tells us all the seed of the righteous are not blessed] with the like, I suppose already done in my Book of Baptism. All the seed of the righteous are blessed, though not all with that blessing which cannot be lost and cast away by themselves when they come to age.

Answ. What is said in his Book of Baptism, will be examined when I come to it. For present it is but Mr. Bs. dictate that all the seed of the righteous are blessed, the indefiniteness of the Scripture expressions the matter being contingent, experience and the Apostles exposition of the promise Gen. 17.7. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. are against it; yet if it were true, • t follows not it must be visible Church membership, it might be some other blessing, of which God hath store, yea it is certain it canno • be visible Church membership, since abortives and still born infants, though the seed of the righteous, are never so blessed, and the children of the holy seed Ezra 9.2. begotten on prohibited women were to be cast out of the Jewish Church.

Mr: B. adds, If you say that the word [seed] doth not necessarily include infants. I answer, infants are part of the seed of the righteous, yea all their seed are first infants. If therefore God have made general promises as to age and person, who is he that dare limit it, without just proof that indeed God hath limited it? Doth God say, that the seed of the righteous are not blessed till they come to age? If he pronounce the seed blessed they must be blessed, when they are first such a seed: And if any one age might be more included then another, one would think it must be that wherein they are so merely the seed of such as that they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief. For the seed of the righteous, as such, have a promised blessing: But the seed of the righteous turning themselves to unrighteousness, do turn from that blessing, and become accursed.

Answ. Mr. B. not holding children in the womb unborn to be visible Church members all this may be retorted, they are part of the seed of the righteous, all their seed are such, how dare then Mr. B. limit the general promises to infants born? The seed is blessed, and so must be visible Church members when they are first such a seed, which is as soon as they are conceived in the womb, then they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief. What Mr. B. replies to this will answer himself. However I deny that without just proof it is to be so limited I limit the promises, that if God pronounce the seed blessed, they must be blessed when they are first such a seed, for then if the blessing be justification, glorification, they must be justified, glorified, afore they believe, or are obedient, which Mr. B. condemns in Antinomians. And if infants stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith, they are not Christian visible Church members, for all such are in their own persons first believers. Nor is it true that the seed of the righteous as such (taking it reduplicatively) have a promised blessing. For then all and only such should have it, and at all times, the contrary is manifest in Cham, Esau, &c. Mr. B. concludes.

I suppose I have already been more tedious then you expected: I will therefore add no more of these passages of Scripture, having said that which satisfieth me formerly to the same purpose, and having yet seen nothing that leaves me unsatisfied. And also because one text either containing such a Law or Covenant as you call for, or declaring to us that God did make such a Law or Covenant, is as good as a thousand in point of authority.

Answ. It is true Mr. B. hath been more tedious then was fit, considering the impertinencie of his allegations, yet not much more then I expected, knowing it to be his course especially in this controversy, to heap many texts impertinently. That he is satisfied with his former writings, especially after the answering of the chief parts by me and others, shows either his injudiciousness or his heedlessness, or unwillingness through prejudice to see his error. That there is not one text for his purpose brought in his Letter to me, is made manifest by this answer, the rest shall be examined after the answer to the remainder of his Letter if God permit.

SECT. LXII. M • . Bs. 9th. and 10th. Qu. about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Church membership, and his eight additionals are answered.

Answ. The occasion of this question I conceive to have been the words in my second Letter, [Wherefore I still press you that you would show me where that law, ordinance, statute or decree of God is, that is repealable, that is, which may in congruous sense be either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law forever.] The reason of my speech was, because I perceived by his former Letter, Mr. B. made his law unrepealed to be by promise and precept. Now though I conceived a precept might in congruous sense be said to be repealed, yet I conceived a promise (which it seems is the law he means) not in congruous sense repealable. For though a promise be a law to the promiser, yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed. 'It is true, the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth, but that cannot be repealed; that which is done, cannot be infectum, not done. The obligation of the promise may cease, if it were limited to a certain time, and that expired; or if it were upon condition, and that fails; or to a person not existent, or of a thing not feasible, or unlawful: The former is not by repeal, but by expiration, which Mr. Cawdrey doth distinguish from re • eal and substitution, Of the Sabbath, part 1. ch. 2. & part 3. ch. 3. The later are not by repeal of the promise (for it stands in force as much as ever, (but by accident through intervenient impediments there is for present an intermission of the obligation. Repeal properly is by an after declaration, which cannot be congruously said of God, that he did promise indeed such a thing, but now he will not promise it, or will not stand to his promise, it were to make God fickle, and unfaithful. And therefore I expected a Law of Precept to make infants visible Church members, to be assigned by Mr. B. for me to prove repealed, and not a law of promise, which is not in congruous sense repealable, and therefore a repeal properly so called not to be expected of me. Which being rightly conceived answers this question, and saves me the reply to what he saith, to prevent an imaginary change of my mind and assertion not yet delivered.

He adds.

Answ. I have examined all that Mr. B. saith in his answer to the 8th. question, and do profess that I find no promise, no not in Gen. 3.15. of infants visible Church membership, or any precept but that of circumcision, Gen. 17. which Mr. B. confesseth to be repealed in respect of the outward act, and for the dedicating of a child to God by prayer to God to sanctify it, or vow to bring it up for God if God give life, &c. or adjuration that they should cleave to God left in writing, or any other way upon record, I still allow it, and so need prove no repeal. So that in truth I see no reason Mr. B. should expect that I should perform his task, of proving a repeal of that which is not, but that he should make good the task I impose on him to prove such a law or ordinance of infants visible Church membership by promise or precept unrepealed, which I expect to be done at latter Lammas; And to his confident speeches I reply. Sure I am from Luk. 2.34. Joh. 9.39. that Jesus Christ came that many of the Jewish Church might be left or cast out of his Church, from Matth. 28.19. and other places before alleged, that he intended to leave all infants out of his visible Church since his coming in the flesh, though he were an infant head of the Church, that though he died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad, Joh. 11.52. yet he intended not to gather them into a visible Church national comprehending infants, that he preached not to any infants, nor by his Disciples baptized any of them, that it is false which Mr. B. saith, that he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judea, even the national Church that then was, unto himself as the true head, as his visible Church, from Matth. 28.19. Mark • 6.15, 16. and the course he, John Ba • tist, and the Apostles followed, that he did intend a new frame of his Church visible, where infants could have no place, that Jerusalem which is above, the Covenant of the Gospel had more children in the Gentile Churches then the Covenant of the Law in the Jewish Church, though infants were not visible members in the Christian Church as they were in the Jewish; that the promise meant Gal 4.28. is not a pro • ise to a believer and his natural seed of visible Church membership, much less to every visible professor and his seed, but a promise of righteousness and blessing, and the spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe, as is plain from Gal. 3.7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 29. But Mr. B. hath yet more work for me.

Answ. Such servants and infants were members of the Jewish Commonwealth, as they were of the Church, in right undoubtedly, in fact if they owned the Jews God and Moses Laws, and submitted to the Senate of Elders, so far as they knew and could be permitted, if they did not, though they forsook not God, yet they were neither of the Jewish Church, nor Commonwealth, as Cornelius, Acts 10th, was not of the Jewish Church or policy. None was of right of the Jewish Church, who was not of the Commonwealth; even then when they were violently held under a foreign power (as when they were under the Chaldean Persian, Greek and Roman Empires) they did submit to both though with much reluctancy.

Qu. 2. If (as you say) it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being God's people, were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off, or not, who continued successively a famous Church at Jerusalem, which came to be a Patriarchal seat. Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jews Church members in infancy? If no, then it was somewhat else then unbelief that broke them off.

Answ. The believing Jews were not broken off from the people of God, but from the Jewish people or Church national which rejected Christ: these believing Jews continued a famous Church after some time of publishing the Gospel and the Jews presecuting the faith, sepated from the Jewish Church, not having infants Church members, and they were broken off from the Jewish Church national not by unbelief, but by faith in Christ to which they did adhere, and could not be conjoined to the Jewish Church without rejection of Christ. Mr. B. adds.

If yea, then Qu. 3. Whether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the partition wall, and making of two one Church, would have such a Linsey Woolsy Church of party colors, or several forms: so as that the Church at Jerusalem should have infant members, and the Church at Rome should have none. Jews infants should be members and not Gentiles.

Answ. Christ came to cast out the unbelieving Jews, not from the Jewish Church national, they continued still in it, but from the invisible Church of true believers which was in that nation, to which was joined the Gentile Church of true believers, which were all of one sort, whether at Rome or Jerusalem, to wit, all that had one spirit, one faith, one baptism ; not one infant in the visible Church Christian either at Rome or Jerusalem.

Qu. 4. If unbelief brake them, will not repentance graff them in? And so should every repenting believing Jews infants be Church members?

Answ. Faith and repentance will engraff every penitent believer into the Church invisible, the profession thereof will engraff them into the visible Church, but not their infants, though the believer be a Jew.

Qu▪ 5. Was not Christ's Church before his incarnation spiritual, and gathered in a spiritual way?

Answ. The invisible was, the visible Jewish national was not.

Qu. 6. How prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame, that infants were members? or that Christ's Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age?

Answ. I say not that it was a blemish, but that it was a more imperfect state of the Church then in that and other re • ards. The later question is answered Sect. 50, 51, 52. before.

Qu. 7. In what regard is the new frame better • d by casting out infants which were in the old?

Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in only believers, the Church is more spiritual.

Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith (in the Articles necessary to salvation) repentance and obedience? And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old; save only that a more full and express revelation of Christ, requireth a more full ex • ress faith?

Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult, it being hard to determine what Articl • s were necessary to salvation, which is a question so hard, that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can only say, that I know not what profession each Jew did make, or was to make. I find a confession enjoined Deut. 26. and imprecation ch. 27. I find idolaters, blasphemers, and some others adjudged to death, yet I find not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws, that idolaters, and such great sinners were cast out of the Church, but were members of it. The later is answered before often enough.

Mr. B. tells me. You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions, and towards the middle that occasioneth the first. As for your motion of my fully describing the privileges of Church members, I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it.

Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well, that I expected I should have questions enow, though I desired only a few Texts, its his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted, and serve to weary the reader and respondent, and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist, though without cause. But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words, when I desired only a line or two about his texts, and how ill he deals with me and the reader▪ who will not distinctly show me the privileges of his visible Church membership, the denial of which he makes so heinous, and from which he argues so much, I leave to the considerable Reader to judge. But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me, after all my work in answering him, I must be corrected ere I be dismissed.

SECT. LXIII. Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions, and Conclusion of his Letter, are answered.

Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me, imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae, though I pity him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not, or will not understand, presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor, after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones. But to his question I answer negatively, and return it back to him: is it not an undertaking palpably absurd, to make visible Church membership to be a right to a benefit by God's promise as the sole efficient, and another's faith as the condition?

Answ. That I need choose none of the ways he mentions, nor change my opinion, is amply shown Sect. 55. this high charge would have been le • t out had he more sobriety and humility. I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible, and go on.

Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers, that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism, and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others, and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these, which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law, promise, or Covenant is? And do you not prove, that it is not because of the evidence of truth, but by your mere interest or confident words, these people are changed and held to your opinion? Do they know what [a trans • unt fact is, that without law or Covenant makes Church members?] I say, do they know this? which no man that ever breathed till now, ner ever man will know again? And do you not proclaim them men of d • stempered consciences, that dare go on in such a Schism, on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatched so long after their perversion, and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain.]

Answ, Ne saevi magne sacerdos. The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts, but the plain word of God, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.16. Acts 2.38. & 8.37. from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent, is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it, specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant, as the institution of Christ and practice of the Apostles, which they follow without Schism, endeavoring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism, which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God. If any Schism have been, a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth, as if it were a damnable error accursed of God, and his followers violent opposition (of which Bewdley hath had sad experience) of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith, and breaking bread together, though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism, pag. 342. that it should be so. And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others, they are not to be blamed, having the plain word of God as interpreted even by Paedobaptists themselves, yea almost all Commentaries, for their warrant. And truly though I delight not in recriminations, yet I may justly retort Mr. Bs. words. Is it not a great disgrace to all Mr. Bs. followers, that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism as Mr. B. leads them into, who would have none to have pastoral charge with public pay, that will not admit to the Lord's Supper the baby sprinkled, that inveighs against Baptism of believers now used as if it were murder and adultery, that represents them that deny infant Baptism in the most odious way he can to the world, and is so confident that he is wiser and righter then others, and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these, a law and ordinance of infants visible Church membership by promise and precept unrepealed nowhere extant, a discipleship by the parents faith mediately without any learning of their own, which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what visible Church membership, or Discipleship is? And doth he not prove, that it is not because of the evidence of truth, but by his mere interest or confident word • , the people of Kidderminster, Bewdley, and elsewhere, are changed from the truth of the Scripture made known to them, and held to his opinion? Do they know wh • t an ordinance or law of infants visible Church membership and mediate Discipleship is, which I find not any man vented afore Mr. B. And doth he not proclaim them men of distempered consciences, that dare go on i • such a Schism as Mr. B. and with him many persons are brought into by him from me, and the baptized in Bewdley and elsewhere, on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatched so lately, and never waking man I think did before Mr. B. so solemnly maintain?

Qu. 3. Is it not a desperate undertaking, and dare you adventure on it, to justify all the world before Christ's incarnation except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God, to take him to be their God, and themselves to be his people? Yea, to justify all Jews against this charge, that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church? And doth not he that saith there is no law, say there is no transgression?

Answ. He doth: But Mr. B. should remember there is a law against bea • ing false witness against his neighbor, which he much urgeth against Mr. Eyre and others; but himself is deeply guilty of it in his high charges, and particularly in this▪ that I justify all Jews neglecting to engage their children to God in covenant as members of his Church, and all the world not dedicating their children to God. Let him prove either, if he can; if not, let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his lie of infant Church membership and Baptism by such lies as these, and fear the fate of liars. What I hold, may be seen in that which goes before.

Qu. 4 Dare you yet justify also at the Bar of God, all the world since Christ's incarn • tion from the guilt of sin, in not dedicating their children to Christ and entering them into his Covenant as members of his Church? Dare you maintain that all the world is sinless in this respect?

Answ. I dare justify the non-baptizing them, and am assured Mr. B. cannot justify the baptizing of infant children.

Qu. 5. Have you well considered of the fruit of your way • apparent in England and Ireland at this day? Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not? And is it any wonder if posterity be left in controversy about the History of former times, when you can venture, even in these times when the persons are living in our company, to tell me that [you think I am mis-informed that they are Anabaptists, and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized,] when of many that we know, and multitudes that we hear of, there are so few that were not before against infant Baptism, and the Se • kers first such, and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down infant Baptism; and it is one of the questions that they send to • e, and others to answer, [how we can prove it by express Scripture without consequences, or else confess ou • selves false Prophets.

Answ. My ways in opposing infant Baptism, and endeavoring to restore believers Baptism, are such (setting aside my infirmities) as upon conside • ation I find cause not to be ashamed of, but to rejoice in, and conceive by many evidenc • s that God own • them. What fruit of them in England and Ireland they have had, I do not very well know; if they that are termed Anabaptists do hold unjustifiable positions or practices, they are not the fruit of my ways, anymore then the Nicola • • ans, Gnostics, and others ways, were the fruits of the Apostles preaching. My conscience beareth me witness, and so will the people where I have taught, the brethren with whom I have walked yea, I think some of my Antagonists, with whom I have acted in the public employment of approving Preachers, and perhaps the most eminent persons in England, that I have opposed the errors risen, and have sought reformation without separation, have joined upon all occasions in the common cause with dissenters; insomuch that I had hoped impudence itself would never have dared so to belie me, as to make Schism, Quakerism, and such like evils the fruit of my ways. If many rents and errors have sprung up by accident after my writings, they are no more to be charged on me, then Antinomianism, Swenekfieldianism, &c. were to be charged on Luther ; or Brownism, Familism, &c. on the Antiprelatists. What I wrote to Mr. B. I think still, yea, Mr. Bs. own relations confirm me, they are not Anabaptists, though they be against infant baptism. Those very persons, or some of that society which sent to Mr. B. (if my intelligence do not deceive) though they they were against infant baptism, yet neglected baptism when convinced of it as their duty, and they might have been baptized; and as it was foretold them they were likely to be without the opportunity, so it came to pass, for they were after carried away with the delusion of the quakers. It is not my observation alone, but it is the Authors conceit who wrote the book against them termed The quakers blazing star, who was carried away once by them, that the living above ordinances and as Seekers hath been one of the chief ways which hath brought it in, God justly leaving them to be deluded by Satan who would not submit to the way of God's ordinances; and he adviseth persons, as to labor to be well grounded in faith and repentance, so to join in Church communion (of which he takes the Churches of the baptized to be most right, and accordingly hath himself been joined by Baptism to them) as the best preservative against it. For my part, I think Mr. Bs. and other Ministers maintaining infant Baptism do give most advantage and encouragement to them, both to inveigh against them as men that will not yield to truth, but teach a manifest error, and therefore not to be heard; and then Mr. Saltmarsh and others delusions about water baptism as now ceased, living in the spirit, expectation of it, no true Ministry now without the spirit as the Apostles had, and such like conceits driving them off from the Churches of the baptized, they are caught by those emissaries from Rome, and other agents of Satan, with that Divelish delusion, God justly suffering Satan to delude them with lies, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, 2 Thes. 2.10. So that I have as much cause to think quakerism the fruit of Mr. Bs. ways as of mine own. Nor will it be any wonder if posterity be left in controversy about the History of former times, when such a one as Mr. B. shall continue to load me with false accusations, with which I have many ways shown myself not chargeable; and not only he, but also Mr. Robert Baillee in his Dissuasives, Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena's, and others shall in English and Latin heap so many untruths on godly persons because dissenters, while they lived to show the falsity of them.

Qu 6.

Answ. How far these things have touched my heart, I must give an account to God my Judge, and not to Mr. B. who with his fraternity I perceive would pass a heavy doom on me, and scarce award me a place in earth or heaven: And no marvel, if I were so pernicious an instrument as he describes me. But may I not require Mr. B. to show me by what actions I have done any of these things? Is Mr. B. allowed to accuse in generals, and not to instance in particulars? may he without control accuse and not prove? May he have liberty, as in a Chancery bill hath been wont, to put in all he can imagine, whether true or false? Is not this the manner of quakers and scolds? Are my answers often made of no avail to clear myself, but that Mr, B. will still be imputing that to me, which my writings and courses do absolve me from? No marvel Dr. Owen said of him, Appendix to his Vindic Evang. pag. 5. A man that doth not know him as I do, would by his writings take him to be immitis & immisericors, a very Achilles, that will not pardon a man in his grave, but will take him up and cut him in a thousand pieces. I tell Mr. B. plainly, it is not my doctrine but Mr. Bs. which perverts souls, I mean his doctrine of Baptism and Church membership, besides his other errors; that neither my doctrine nor practice open a gap to Schism, but tend to the contrary, unity of Baptism being one of the bonds of Christians, Ephes. 4.4. the restoring of which is the regular way to union▪ Mr. B. by his violent opposing it and the assertors of it, doth really open a gap to Schism, I open no gap to contempt of the Ministry, but they themselves do it by opposing truth, and other ways, Apostasy from Christ or godliness is no fruit of my doing, but is rather caused by those that urge persons to renounce the right Baptism and Communion of the baptized, of which I fear Mr. B. is guilty. A right reformation according to God's word, cannot be while infant Baptism continues, in seeking to destroy it I promote reformation, Mr. B. by maintaining it destroys reformation, and by proposals shows his inclination to persecution, which if I hinder I rejoice. I weaken not Mr. Bs. hands in preaching the Gospel, but strengthen them, if I enervate his error I am glad; he hath most unbrotherlike endeavored to weaken my hands, and to stop my mouth. I fill not adversaries mouths with scorn▪ of him, but he hath thrown as much dirt as he could on me, in his writings▪ I entice not Jesuits and Friers, and if they creep in among those of our judgment, is it anymore then Jude v. 4. speaks of in his time? Can Mr. B. say they are not among his party? I harden no Papists, but show their bottom error, nor profane persons, but take the right way to undeceive them; they that maintain their infant Baptism, settle them on their dregs, I mean their carnal presumption; by which they take themselves to be Christians without knowledge of Christ. The Church that was likely to have been Mr. Bs. way, may be discerned by the Elders, by the Scottish Church, Mr. Bs. Church at Kidderminster, the associated Ministers in Wocestershire and their Churches. Confusion is too great, for want of restoring Christ's order, more would be if Mr. Bs. way were imposed, and no small oppression on tender consciences and dissenting brethren. I may say, oh what a Church might we have had, if it had not been for Mr. B. and other such violent Paedobaptists as he is, opposing Christ's way.

Qu. 7. Is [a transeunt fact, making infants Church members without Law, promise, or Covenant] a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things, and run such hazards as you have done? or is it possible that an humble sober man, and a tender conscience, durst make all this havoc, and stand out in it, so many years considerately as you have done, and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence: When you should prove to us the revocation of infants Church membership, to tell us that they • ad it only by a transeunt fact? Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on? Sir, my conscience witnesseth, that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you, but some compassion on you (do not scorn it) and more on your poor followers; and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled.

Answ. I venture on no such horrid things, nor run such hazards as Mr. B. imagines, nor is the transeunt fact that I build on, but Christ's institution Matth. 28.19. though that transeunt fact I assign is sufficient for the purpose I allege it, and I cross interrogate Mr. B. Is it possible that an humble sober man, and a tender conscience, should make such foul work as he hath done by his writings, upon such a p • lpably unreasonable pretence, as a Law of infants visible Church membership, by promise and precept unrepealed, nowhere extant, and a mediate Discipleship hatchit in his brain? My reproach is a small matter, did it not tend to darken the truth I should neglect it, nor should I have answered these questions so fully, had not these things been impar • ed to the Preacher and others at Bewdley, ere they came to my hands. Though my reproach were not finis operantis, yet must it needs be finis operis. I thank Mr. B. for his compassion on me and my followers, I have the like on him and his followers. I do not scorn his compassion, but pity his prejudice and pertinency. If I have injured and troubled the Church my Antagonists have compelled me, the Lord knows I had not a resolution to print, till the Assembly neglected the matter, and determined against me and the truth unheard. That I have injured the Church by printing I believe not, it is certain Mr. B. hath extremely injured me and the truth, and troubled the Church of God, by printing his Book of Baptism. I should not have peace in my conscience did I not endeavor to detect his a • d other Paedobaptists fallacies, which I crave liberty to do, and shall easily pass by personal reproaches.

Qu. 8. Can you prove that ever there was one age, or Church (particular) on earth since Adam till about 200. years ago, that the Anabaptists rose, wherein infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church? If you can do it: Let's hear your proof

Answ. I can, and for proof look back to Sect. 50, 51, 52, 57. besides Constantine, Augustine, mentioned by Mr. B. p 329. Nazianzen, Jerome, &c. unbaptized though of Christian parents till adult.

Qu. 9. Can you bring us proof of any one infant of true Church-members, that was not rightfully a Church member himself from the creation till Christ's days? or from the creation till this day? except the Anabaptists, who reject the benefit; whose case (as I said before) I will not presume to determine?

Answ. I can, for proof look back to Sect. 50, 51, 52, 57.

Qu. 10. Seeing that infants have been de facto Church members from the creation to this day (as far as any records can lead us) is it likely that the Lord, and head and all-sufficient Governor of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects, as in regard of age he disallowed? and suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest and lawful undertaking, to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church, as to the age of the subjects? And is it not more modest and safe, to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptists with vile and sinful means, and miserable success, did attempt an alteration?

Answ. This question ariseth from these suppositions, 1. that infants have been de facto Church members from the creation to this day. 2. That all the Saints in heaven lived in a Church that had infants visible Church members till less then 200. years ago. 3. That the Anabaptists in Germany in less then 200. years attempted the alteration first of of leaving infants out of the visible Church. 4. That they did it with vile and sinful means and miserable success. The first of these is not true, as is shown in the fore-going Sections, chiefly those in which the 8th. question of this Letter of Mr. B. is answered, the second is shown to be false Sect. 52. wherein it is proved the Apostles lived in a Church that had not infants. The third is false, for both Christ altered it, and when the corruption of infant Baptism had overspread the Western Churches, many besides the late Anabaptists, as Petrus de Bruis and many other Saints in heaven did alter it. The fourth is in part false, For I think the Anabaptists so called, did not alter infant visible Church membership with vile and sinful means, but some of them (not all) did by vile and sinful means seek to set up a temporal dominion of the Saints (as I fear some now called Quinto-monarchians do) which is not to be imputed to all that are of the same way in point of discipline and ordinances, and that though this thing of erecting a temporal dominion had miserable success, yet the restoring of Baptism hath had success as other reformations, as of the Waldenses, Hussites, Non-conformists and others, who though by clamours of Preachers, and violence of Princes, they have been for a time suppressed, yet a remnant have been preserved, who have in time revived, and we hope notwithstanding all the clamours, accusations, and practices, used to corrupt & suppress them, will spread & grow up through the blesing of God. And to Mr. Bs. questions I answer▪ my aim is not to erect a new framed Church to God, but to reduce it to the frame Christ and his Apostles left it in, though it were after some ages altered by the corruption of infant Baptism, which had its original from the gross error that by it God's grace was given, and otherwise the infants should perish. And though in that Church, who were for infant Baptism many were Saints now in heaven, yet it is not safe to continue that error, anymore then to continue the error of infant Communion now by Papists and Protestants rejected, though it were many hundreds of years practiced in the same Churches. And sure I wonder if he condemn me for seeking reformation of infant Baptism, how Mr. B. could justify himself for not living quietly in the Church of England, as it was under the Prelates, though there were among them in that Church Saints now living in heaven, but seeking the reformation of discipline and ceremonies of human invention, though greater troubles followed thereon, then I think hath followed this reformation I endeavor, and then I hope ever will. Surely if the way I take, and propound, and prosecute were followed, the reformation would be easy and safe, and that it is not followed, will be laid to the charge of Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists as their sin, nor can all his or their wit be able to clear them from it, nor from the guilt of breaking their solemn Covenant to endeavor the reformation of these Churches according to God's word. He concludes,

Sir pardon the weakness, and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother (though not as is meet) Rich. Baxter. May 14. 1655.

Answ. I pray the Lord to pardon Mr. Bs. violent and clamourou • , though I hope not willful opposing of the truth, and I love him not the worse for his plain dealing, yet cannot patiently bear his falsehoods, wherein he accuseth the truth and servants of the living God, and by showing him his errors, and evil dealing, have endeavored to acquit myself as his faithful brother, as was meet, however he hath been, or shall be towards me affected.

He adds after,

To which I answer, 1. I refuted Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church membership, as a thing pretended, not as a thing real, and so am neither mutable nor hypocritical, in denying such a law. 2. I have no delight in Mr. Bs. writings of this subject, unless there were more ingenuity and solidity in them, then I yet find, and therefore am willing to gratify him with no more of my manuscripts in this kind. 3. As for the Copy of my Sermon he hath the matter of it with enlargement in the 50, 51, and 52. Section of this Book, which when he answers, fragili querens illidere dentem offendet solido. 4. What I had more to say then I have printed, he may perceive by my Books, and however Mr. B. conceives, yet I conceive that the reformation or confirmation of infant Baptism, is a matter of as great moment as the things Mr. B. is intentive on. However, he might have answered my Letter without any of this trouble he hath put himself to: But since he chose this way, I have thought it necessary to make this reply, and so to go on to the examining the rest of his Book, not yet examined by me at large, though there be little which is not answered in this and other parts before.

SECT. LXIIII. My Answer in the Dispute and Sermon to the argument of Mr. B. of Baptism, part 1. ch. 6. about the non-repeal of infants Church membership, because neither in justice nor mercy, is vindicated.

PLain Scripture proof, &c. part 1. ch. 6. Mr B. speaks thus.

Answ. In the Dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649. and the Sermon shortly after, I did not understand Mr. Bs. opinion as I do now; nor did afore the writing of his last Letter, conceive of his law and ordinance of visible Church membership what it was, and where it was to be found; nor do I yet conceive clearly what the benefit and privilege is to infants by their visible Church membership which he asserts. And therefore if I gave not so clear an answer to this argument as were requisite, it is to be imputed partly to the unacquaintedness with it at that time, partly to Mr. Bs. artifice, who carried himself close in the Dispute for indirect advantage, and still is unwilling to show his mind fully, though desired by me in the Letter before set down. What is his opinion about the law unrepealed, is considered before; what he imagines are the privileges and benefit of his infants visible Church members, seems to be intimated in these passages of his Letter in the 4th. qu. set down here, sect. 55. when he saith, I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God, to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people, to be brought so near him, and to be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises, that live as without God in the world, and without hope. In another passage, set down Sect. 56. To be a member of the Church, is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God, and taken by him for his special people. The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society. The relation then essentially containeth 1. a right to the great benefits of God's sovereignty over men, Christ's headship, and that favor, protection, provision, and other blessings which are due from such a powerful and gracious a Sovereign to such subjects, and from such a head to his members: As also a right to my station in the body, and to the inseparable benefits thereof. Which how false they are, is in part shown above. He likewise expresseth the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian, as if it were a casting out, excommunicating, by a punitive execution of a curse or law on them, ch. 5. part 1. of plain Scripture proof, &c. wherein how he is mistaken is shown above. These things being premised, I say, that if Mr. B. understand by [ mercy ] remunerative mercy, and by [ justice ] punitive justice (as he seems to do,) I deny the major. And to his reasons I answer, 1. Simply, and of itself, the non • visible Church membership of infants imports neither hurt nor good to them: But by accident, in that their visible Church membership in the Church of the Hebrews obliged them to Circumcision and the yoke of the Law, so it imports hurt to them. 2. If it did import hurt or good to them, yet it might be neither by an act of remunerative mercy, nor punitive justice, that they are left out o • the Church; but by an act of mere Sovereignty, as it is in election and reprobation, and in the disposing of the Gospel where God pl • aseth. 3. God hath his ends in this alteration, as to show his freeness, his intent to have his visible Church more spiritual then the Jewish, &c. though not to show his remunerative mercy or avenging justice. 4. It is not in mere indifferency, but of moment to these ends that he doth so.

Mr. B. proceeds thus. The minor I prove in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice▪ I prove thus: If God never revoke his mercies, nor repeal his ordinances in justice to the parties hurt, till they first break Covenant with him, and so procure it by their own desert▪ then he hath not in justice revoked this mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him: But it is certain that God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him▪ therefore to such he hath not so revoked it.

Answ. God's revoking mercies in justice to the parties hurt, is sometimes without the particular persons breaking Covenant with him, or his desert. Are not the infants of Adam deprived of life in justice to their hurt, without their breaking Covenant with God, or their personal desert? Are not many infants and others deprived of the preaching of the Gospel, who yet are descended from faithful ancestors who never brake Covenant with God, only for that the nation of which they are a part, are over-run by barbarous people, they carried away captive, they and their children made slaves? Do not these things happen to the most godly Saints? Doth not Solomon tell us, Eccles. 9.2. that all things come alike to all? Doth not the Apostle tell us, Rom. 9.11, 12. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the cle • ion might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, It was said to Rebecca, the elder shall serve the younger; As it 〈◊〉 written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated: whence v. 18. he infers, therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth ? And again, Rom. 11.33. after he had considered the various ways of God's dealing with Jews and Gentiles, he thus concludes, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his paths past finding out ! From whence, and from innumerable experiments of thousands of godly Greeks whose children are taken from them and made Turks, and others, I may safely deny the minor of Mr. Bs. argument, which he saith is certain, as being most certainly false, and like the arguing of the Disciples, John 9 2. which Christ refuted v. 3. concerning the man who was born blind.

But Mr. B. goes on to prove it thus. That this is a mercy, and of the Covenant, is plain, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. and frequently past denial.

Answ. That the visible Church membership of infants in the Jewish national Church was a mercy, its not denied; but that it was such a mercy as Mr. B. makes it above, to contain essentially a right to the great benefits of God's sovereignty over men, Christ's headship, and that favor, prote • tion, provision, and other blessings, which are due from so powerful and gracious a Sovereign to such subjects, and from such a head to his members, is neither true, nor proved from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. where the being a God to them doth not necessarily include all these benefits; nor if it did, doth it ascribe them to their visible Church membership, but to their obedience to his laws, implied in the phrase that he may establish thee for a people to himself; that is, saith Piscator in his Scholie on the place, That he may require worship from thee by obedience towards his precepts, and so may bind thee to himself: Which sense the rest of Moses his speech in that and the following chapter show, and consequently they presuppose not only their Covenant with God, and their visible Church membership but also their keeping the law so far as the blessings were legal, and their belief and obedience to the Gospel so far as they are Evangelical.

2. Saith Mr. B. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant breakers, I prove briefly thus. 1. From the merciful nature and constant dealings of God, who never casteth off those that cast not off him.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth most vainly intimate them to be cast off by God who are not visible Church members, which if true, it would prove that all infants dying in the womb are cast off by God, with many more, who are not visible Church members, and yet are blessed persons. 2. For God's merciful nature, it doth not hinder but that God may cast off them who cast not off him, since his merciful nature doth not act as a natural agent, but as a free agent; and he hath resolved us, Exod. 33.19. Rom. 9.15. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion, even then when he proclaimed his Name to be gracious and merciful. 3. • t is false, as hath been before proved, that the constant dealing • of God are such, as that he never casteth off those that cast not him off.

2. Saith Mr. B. From his truth and faithfulne •• ▪ For else we should make God the Covenant breaker, and not man; which is horrid blasphemy.

Answ. This argument indeed were good if God had made this Covenant with men, That whoever of them believe in Christ, their infant children should be Church members visible in his Church Jewish or Catholic. But there was never such a Covenant made by God, and therefore though he alters the frame of the Church, so as to leave out infants of believers from being visible members, he breaks no Covenant.

3. Saith he, From the immutability and constancy of God: His gifts and calling are without repentance.

Answ. God is indeed immutable and constant in his being and promises, and his gifts of election, foreknowledge, effectual calling, meant Rom. 11.29. as v. 28, 27, 26, 7, 5, 2, show, are without repentance, Rom. 8.30. Rom. 9.6. But the gift of visible Church membership is not such, even according to Mr. B. Cain was a visible Church member, yet cast off, with many more. Many a believers child is in infancy taken from him and made a Mahometan, so as that he never is a visible Christian, and yet God is unchangeable, and his gifts meant Rom. 11.29. without repentance.

4. Saith he, Scripture frequently layeth all the cause of all evil of suffering upon man's sinning, Mic. 1.5. Hos. 13.9.

Answ. 1. He supposeth, but proveth not, that the non-visible Church membership Christian of infants is an evil of suffering, which I deny. 2. It is false that the Scripture ever layeth all the cause of all the evil of suffering upon the man's sinning, who suffereth; the contrary is manifest in the death of infants by Adams sin, Rom. 5.12. 3. Some sufferings our Lord Christ denies to be from the special sin of children or parents, John 9.3, 4. The Texts alleged prove not Mr. Bs. proposition; the former proves only the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem to be for their idolatry, the other proves the same to have been the fate of Israel for the same sin, but neither Mr. Bs. universal proposition. So that hitherto Mr. B. hath proved nothing.

He applies his unproved dictates thus. Now you know there were many Jews that did believe▪ and did not forsake the Covenant of God, even most of the Apostles themselves, and many thousands more: Now how then can th • se or their infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt, who did not first break Covenant with God?

Answ. 1. God may in justice do it, because he is a Sovereign Lord who is no debtor to any, Rom. 11.34, 35, 36. 2. God may in justice do it for the parents sins some ages before, or the national sin of the Jews in rejecting Christ might be a just cause for God to break off all infants Church membership, being only a consequent of the taking the Hebrew nation for his people, though some parents believed, in common punishments and changes the obedience of some few not exempting them and theirs from them; as in the Babylonish captivity, it happened for Manasseh his sin, notwithstanding Josiah's reformation, 2 Kings 23.26.

Mr. B. goes • n.

Answ. 1. I deny that now which I did not deny in the Dispute, neither understanding whereto Mr. Bs. argument tended, nor what his opinion was in the matter of his argument, nor having competent time to consider his words. 2. I was somewhat amazed at first reading at Mr. Bs. dealing with me who had so good an opinion of his godliness and tenderness of consciences, and his pretences of friendliness, that if a man had sworn to me, before he printed, that he would have thus abused and accused me so falsely, I should not have believed it. But I see no hopes of any justice from such an intemperate Zealot for his opinion, nor any right understanding of me, or anything I say or do, from one so prejudiced, superficial, in his consideration of things, yet peremptory, and rash in his determinations, as Mr. B. is. Suppose I had answered them as weakly as Mr. B. imagines I did, yet a litt • e experience might have told him, that it might have common from other causes then the power of error, bereaving at once my understanding of ordinary light, and my conscience of tenderness. Such censures, if there were no more, show Mr. B. was carried with intemperate heat in his writing, a thing which certainly corrupts a man's judgment, and ma • e verum examinat omnis corruptus Judex. To his accusations I answer, It is false that I deny Church membership to all the infants in the world, that I raise a Schism in a poor distressed Church, that I thretaen those that yield not to me and all upon the grounds he mentions, which yet are not lamentable any otherwise then because they are no better heeded. But to the argument. The major I shall consider anon; the minor is that which is under present consideration, which I deny, and avow what I then answered, with this explication and amplification. Infants visible Church membership was only in the Hebrew nation. The end of God was in taking that nation to be his visible people, that there might be a fixed nation among whom and from whom Christ should be born. To that end he would have them distinguished from other people by Circumcision, by laws▪ &c. He would have their Tribes distinguished, their inheritances fixed, their genealogy certain; this was the benefit of that nation, the honor and mercy to the infants and others, and God took it away after Christ's coming as being useless, it being to usher it in, I mean the whole ordering of the Hebrew Church membership; and it was a greater mercy to the Church of God, and thereby to the infants, who had their Church membership only a mercy before by consequence as a part of that people, without any feeling or enjoyment of it till they came to riper age: And this was a greater mercy then their former membership, 1. in that they were freed from the yoke of the Law; 2. Christ who was promised was a known person, and revealed and accomplished the will of God concerning the salvation of h • s people. Let's view Mr. Bs. refutation.

1. Saith he. Was it ever heard before from the mouth of man, that Christ succeeded church membership, as a thing that was to give place for him? Doth Christ cast any out of the Church, only that he may succeed them? Can he prove that their church membership was a type of Christ, that must cease when he was come? Why doth he not prove it then from some Scripture or reason? cannot we have a room in the body without being cast out at the coming of the head? Are the head and members at such odds, that one must give place, and be gone when the other comes? Why then is not the church membership of men and women to give place to Christ's coming in the flesh? Sure the nature of church membership is the same in both. Why did the Apostles never speak of this among the types of Christ that did cease, that all infants are put out of the Church or family of God, that Christ may succeed as a greater mercy to them then their room in his Church and family? Is not here comfort (but by a silly comforter) to all the Jews themselves? though they are broken off from the Church, yet Christ is a greater mercy to them instead of it.

Answ. Mr. B. keeps his wont of refuting me by frivolous questions and foolish scoffs, instead of solid arguments. To them as they are, I return these answers. He himself ch. 30. saith, The dedication of the first • 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 Church membership of infants was but to endure till Christ's coming 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 Church membership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham, continued only 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, Abraham's 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 Church membership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth, and there is no Church membership, 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 Christ's 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 Church membership was but an introduction, type, shadow, fore-runner to Christ's 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 coming of Christ believers Church membership was to succeed to birth-Church membership: To the second, that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them, yet by his coming he alters Church membership by birth into Church membership 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 Church members now by birth anymore then infants, and in that respect the nature of Church membership 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 instead of infants visible Church membership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish, they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy, the body instead of the shadow, the Sun risen instead 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 show; 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 Christ's coming; 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 rejoiced 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 instead.

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 only an act of God according to his Sovereignty, 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 show 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 showeth 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 anything I say, who do not▪ assert them put out by any judicial sentence, but by a free act of God's sovereignty left out, for reasons best known to himself, but in part revealed to us.

Mr. B. adds. I argued also thus: • 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 mercy from Christ now, as then, (he should say more. )

Answ. This answer was right; infants now are in a better case, though not visible Christian church members, then they were when in the Jewish Church, in which they were circumcised and obliged to Moses law; and they have as much assurance of mercy from Christ, to wit, righteousness and life as then; yea, more (though I need not say so in contradiction to Mr. Bs. minor ) then before, since Christ's exhibition in the flesh is a greater assurance of saving mercy then was before.

To which, saith Mr. B. I replied thus, If those infants which were in the Church before Christ, had God engaged in an oath and Covenant to be their God, and to take them for his peculiar people, and those infants out of the Church since Christ have no such thing; then they before Christ in the Church had more assurance of mercy then those out of the Church since Christ: But the former is true, as I proved out of Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. upon which text, what vain altercations there were, and what words were used against the express Letter of the text, you shall see in the relation of the Dispute, if • be called to publish it.

Answ. For my part I shall not consent that Mr. B. publish the relation of the Dispute▪ having found his dealing so injurious to me in that which he hath already done, and his partiality towards his opinion and party. I have looked over two such relations of the Dispute as I could get, and I find in them that I did deny the minor, and when Mr. B. alleged Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. to prove it, I did distinguish of being God in respect of saving benefits, and thus God is engaged in Covenant to be God to infants now no visible Church members as he was then, to wit to the elect only, or in respect of outward advantages, such as were peculiar to the nation of the Jews, as that they should possess Canaan, have God's worship and presence with them in a more special manner then other people, Christ to come out of that people, &c. as Rom. 9.4, 5. the Apostle reckons them, and in this respect it was granted that infants in the Church before Christ had God so engaged, and that neither infants out of the Church Christian, no nor believers in it, no nor all believers afore Christ, such as Cornelius had God so engaged, and that in this respect the oath of God was meant, appeared from v. 13. which saith thus, that he may establish thee today for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, which appears to be meant of their settling in Canaan and their prosperous state there, as many places evince, where it is mentioned particularly Gen. 12.7. & 13.15. & 15.8. & 17.8. & 22.17. & 26.3. & 28.13, 14. Deut. 34.5, &c. besides many other passages in the same speech of Moses, Deut. 29.16, 21, 23, 24, 27. Deut. 30.2, 5.9, 10, 16, 18. and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30.20. From which passages it is as evident as the light, that the meaning Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. was this, that God did bring into Covenant by Moses (the chief standing for the rest) the whole nation of Israel, that they might for themselves and their posterity unborn bind them to observe the laws of Moses given in Horeb, and thereby be established a people to God, and he might be a God to them in settling, keeping and prospering them in Canaan, if they did obey. Now Mr. B. asserted that God did covenant with all the little ones and others there present, to be their God, and that in respect of spiritual benefits, and to that end, urged Deut. 30.6. which he made conditional, and to other then the elect. Against which I urged, that [ to circumcise the heart ] is the same with writing God's laws in the heart Heb. 8.10. which Dr. Twisse ▪ rightly concludes to be absolute and to the • lect only, and that to assert it to be conditional is Pelagianism, and I desired the Auditors to take notice of Mr. Bs. assertion in that thing: I confess I had not time to collect and to produce the texts here mentioned (which was one reason why I was still averse from extemporary verbal disputes) but this was the substance of that ••• rcation which Mr. B. calls vain, and saith, words were used against the express letter of the text. Concerning which, although I will not undertake to justify all I then said, yet the answer I then gave I still avouch as right, and conceive Mr. Bs. assertion of circumcising the heart, to love the Lord, to belong to other then the elect, and to be conditional to be very erroneous, and refer the reader to Mr. Bs. own words in answer to Mr. Bedford in the Friendly accommodation pag. 361, 362. to discern the error of it.

Mr. B. saith, I further add out of Ephes. 2.12. Those that were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, were strangers to the Covenant of promises, and without hope, and without God: and there is no Scripture speaketh of delivering any from this sad state but Church members; therefore sure it can be no mercy to be put out of the Church.

Answ. Though the conclusion were granted it hurts not me, who do not asserr the putting infants out of the Church, who were in, but the not taking of them into the visible Church Christian. However the text speaks of the Ephesians who were uncircumcised in the flesh v. 11. but doth not say that all that were uncircumcised, or aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, were without God in the world. For it is certain that Cornelius and many other Proselytes uncircumcised, were not without God in the world, and therefore persons might then have Christ, though not be visible Church members; and if Mr. B. say, that none but visible members in the Christian Church have Christ, God, hope, he must damn all abortives and still born children of believers, and all those that are converted, (and show it not as dumb persons) on their death-bed, or any other way, in articulo mortis.

Again, saith he, God added to the Church such as should be saved: therefore to be cast or put out of the Church is no known way of mercy.

Answ. The conclusion is granted, and yet the text proves not that all who are added to the Church shall be saved, or that all that shall be saved, are or shall be added to the Church visible.

Again, saith he, the Church is the family of Christ (even the visible Church is called the house of God 1 Tim. 3.15.) But it is no known way of mercy to be out of God's house and family.

Answ. I grant it, and yet a person may be in Christ's house, and a temple to him▪ and not a visible Church member.

Again, saith he, the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth; therefore no mercy to be taken off it.

Answ. I grant it, yet doubt whether the Church be termed so, 1 Tim. 3.15. and not rather either the mystery of Godliness v. 16. as Cameron de Eccles. c. de Eccles. durati, & de Eccl. Const. or Timothy as Gataker Cinni lib. 2. c. 20.

Again, saith Mr. B. the Church visible, is the visible body of Christ; but it is no mercy to be separated from Christ's body.

Answ. True, yet it may be a mercy in respect of the yoke of the law not to be in the visible Church Jewish, yea by accident it may be a mercy to be separated from a visible Church Christian as when the Church is tyrannous in its rule, or unsound in the doctrine taught to it.

Again, saith he, the Church visible is Christ's visible Kingdom: But it is no mercy to be out of Christ's Kingdom; therefore it is no mercy to be out of the Church.

Answ. The same which was made to the former objection is to this.

Lastly, saith Mr. B. Do but read all those hundred glorious things that are spoken of the City of God, all those high praises that are given to the Jewish Church, in Deut. and the Psalms, and all the Scriptures (who is like unto thee O Israel, &c.) And then read all the far more glorious things, that are spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ: And if after this you can still believe, that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church and never take them into the other, and that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy, as if he could fi • liar save them out of his Church then in it; I say, if after reading the foresaid passages▪ you can believe this, for my part I give you up as forlorn, and look upon your understandings in this as forsaken by God, and not only void of spiritual illumination, but common reason: and pray the Lord to save the understandings of all his people from such a plague, and to rescue yours before you go further.

Answ. I say not that God did in mercy cast infants out of one Church, nor that Christ came in the flesh to put them out of the Church in mercy, as if he could fitlier save them out of his Church then in it; but that God never took them into his visible Church Christian, and that Christ's coming in the flesh is a mercy recompensing the visible Church membership Jewish by birth, when God bra • e off that people from the olive for their unbelief, and that Christ can and doth as fitly save infants, though not in the visible Church Christian, as he did when they were in the visible Church Jewish, and yet fear not Mr. Bs. direful omen and sad despair of my understanding, but have as good hopes of mine and my followers understandings in this thing, as of Mr. Bs. and his followers, and leave it to the intelligent to judge, whether we are void not only of spiritual illumination, but common reason. I have read what is said of Israel, and yet think it a mercy now not to be a vi •• ble Church member in it, no not though it were now as it was in the best state under David, Solomon, &c. And I conceive Mr. B. hath read many hundreds of as glorious things spoken of Moses Law as of the Church, and yet I think Mr. B. counts it a mercy now not to be under it. I find the glorious things spoken of the Gospel Church since Christ, meant all or most of it, as it contains that part which is the invisible Church of true believers or elect persons. And I judge God hath dealt mercifully with infants, if he put them into the invisible Church, though he put them not into the visible, if not, either their being in the visible benefits them not or aggravates their condemnation.

Mr. B. proceeds thus.

Answ. It is true finding the boastings concerning Mr. Bs. dispute Janu. 1. 1649. to be many, after my return from Leimster (to which place I was then designed and where I was Janu. 6.) I did though without any copy of the disputation or arguments in writing (which I could not obtain from Mr. B. ) as well as my memory could bear them away, in the close of my Afternoons Sermon, Jan. 13. at Bewdley, recite and refute his arguments in the disputation. Wherein it is true I was somewhat more deliberate then in the dispute, yet for want of the arguments in writing, I could not then give so full and exact an answer to his arguments as had been requisite, nor perhaps shall now to this, because Mr. B. doth not plainly set down though requested by me, what that benefit, privilege, or mercy is, which he conceives annexed to infants visible Church membership unrepealed. But that either 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 find 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 instead ] which are not the same. And for my answer▪ if my terming his arguments [petty reasonings] had been mine only 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 Church membership) there is no reason can be right but what is from God's 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 discretu • 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 God's appointment only 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 fi • in a matter of mere institution, concerning which it is nevertheless manifest from the History of the New Testament, that God hath appointed otherwise then is God's 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 i • the Dispute or Sermon, I say, if it be understood o • 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 me • 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 redound • 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 God's ways are so free and various in this kind, that Mr Bs. ma • 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 mere 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 judgment of some temporal benefit merely because he will, out of his freedom to dispose of his own, yet give no greater mercy instead 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 satisfy that he doth. And yet Hell should not be the greatest place of mercies, for there is not only 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 Church membership 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 recompensed sufficiently in being out of that Church, which consisted of a rebellious and gainsaying people▪ and being, though not visible Church members 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 yields the whole cause. For the minor was, [that here is no greater mercy given to infants instead of Church membership:] Doth not Mr. T. acknowledge this? when be saith twice over : 1. That it is a mercy to the whole catholic Church (to have their infants put out of the Church:) And so if the mercy be only to the catholic 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 only 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 privilege (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 yielded. 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 instead of this, but only 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 Church membership; and consequently, God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good (which is the thing I am proving:) And Mr. T. yieldeth 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 only 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 Church membership visible Jewish ceased, though I still 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 show that I have not yielded 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 yielded, yet the cause is not gained, for the reason before given. But let us view his minor, and my answer. His minor is [ that here is no greater mercy given to infants instead of Church membership, ] my answer was, That in mercy to the whole catholic Church the Jewish infant Church membership ceased, and therefore the infant visible Church membership Jewish in mercy ceased. To understand his minor, it is to be observed that Mr. B. asserts 1. a law or ordinance of infants visible Church membership antecedent to that of Circumcision. 2. That this is by promise and precept. 3. That this infant visible Church membership essentially contains a right to God's sovereignty, Christ's headship, favor, protection, provision, and other blessings due from such a Sovereign and head to his members. 4. That this belonged not only to the infants of the Jewish nation, but also of believers in all ages. 5. That this mercy belonged to the infants of the believers of the Jewish nation when they were made Christians, and so could not be in justice taken from them, though the nation of the Jews were broken off for unbelief. 6. That in mercy it cannot be said to be taken away, without a greater mercy to the infants of believrs instead of it. 7. That the coming of Christ in the flesh, the extent of the Church over the world through faith, the changing of Church membership by birth into that by faith, and so making the Church more spiritual, is not a greater mercy to the infants of Jew believers instead of that visible Church membership. 8. That without visible Church membership in the Christian Church catholic, the infants of Jew believers are in worse case then they were in the Jewish Church national. On the contrary, I deny 1. such a law or ordinance. 2. That the Hebrew infant visible Church membership was by promise and precept. 3. That this visible Church membership contained essentially such a right as Mr. B. asserts; though it was a mercy in comparison of the state of other nations, yet thereto was annexed a heavy yoke of legal impositions, the deliverance from which was a mercy, and in this respect it was in mercy not continued to believers infants of the Jewish nation. 4. That it belonged to any other infants then of the Hebrew people. 5. I assert that when the Jewish nation or Hebrew people were broken off for unbelief in Christ; visible Church membership of infants was in justice taken away from the whole people, and consequently from the infants of Jew believers, who were only visible Church members as a part of that nation, yet in mercy to them since their visible Church membership in that nation was dangerous to them, yea inconsistent with Christianity, the Jewish nation being a rebellious and gainsaying people: as it was a mercy for Lot to be in Sodom, and he was in justice to the place outed; and yet in mercy to himself, when it was to be destroyed. 6. I assert, that it might be truly said that the infant Jewish visible Church membership may be said to be taken away in mercy • rom the infants of believers of that nation, though no greater mercy were given to those particular infants of the same kind barely instead of it. 7. I assert, that it cannot be said to be taken away in justice from infants of believing Gentiles, since it was never granted to any Gentile nation to be God's visible Church, nor were their infants visible Church members, except by proselytism they were incorporated into the Jewish people. 8. I assert, that the not taking in of believing Gentiles infants into the visible Church Christian was not an act judiciary of God as a Judge, but God's free act of sovereignty changing Church membership by birth into Church membership by faith. 9. I assert, that the coming of Christ in the flesh, and the consequents thereof, the breaking down the partition wall, taking in the Gentiles by faith, &c. without taking in infants into the visible Church Christian, were greater me • cies then the Jewish infant Church membership (which was clogged with legal burdens, and was an imperfect state) and did abundantly countervail the Jewish infant visible Church membership in the best state of that, and did bring as much benefit to infants as that relation did. 10. That the infants of believing Gentiles no members of the visible Church Christian are not in worse but be • ter condition, in respect of any real Evangelical blessing, then the Hebrew infants were with their Church membership. 1. Because the spiritual blessings of regeneration, in dwelling of the spirit▪ justification, remission of sins, adoption, God's favor, protection, provision, eternal life, are as much assured to them in infancy without visible Church membership, as they were with it. 2. They do actually enjoy sooner these mercies, if in the invisible Church (without which none ever enjoyed them) and in more ample m • nner without Jewish visible Church membership, then they did with it, the spirit being now more poured out, the G • spel cleared, the Ch • rch enl • rged, only legal ceremonies, and rest in Canaan wit • prosperity therein being taken away. Mr. B. and the reader hereby may fully understand what I deny, and what I grant, and how I answer this his petty reasoning without yielding the cause, and when he hath refuted these ass • rtions, le • him sing his triumph, and not as he vainly and insolently doth afore the victory.

He adds. But yet let us follow it further. And 1. what means Mr. T. to talk of mercy to others, when our question is, Whether it be a mercy to themselves to be unchurched ? 2. • y this arguing be may prove anything almost in the world a mercy: For all shall work together for good to them that love God, Rom. 8.28. And therefore if I should ask him, whether it be in mercy to wicked men, that God giveth them over to themselves, and at last damneth them▪ Mr. T. may thus answer that it is▪ for it is a mercy to the whole catholic Church, that is, to other men: but what is this to the damned? So Mr. T. saith, It is a mercy to the whole catholic Church: But what is that to infants who are unchurched?

Answ. 1. What I mean, he may if he please discern by what is here said, and in what sense infants may be said to be unchurched, and how it may be a mercy to them and others. 2. The damnation of themselves cannot be a mercy to wicked men when it is a benefit to the elect, because it never produceth them good: But the mercy to the catholic Church is a mercy to believers infants, 1. in that it frees them from legal burdens; 2. in that there is a near capacity and probability of the best good for them remaining in their parents or others godly families.

He adds. And what a strange reason is that of Mr. T. to say, It is a mercy, because their Church state was carnal▪ fleshly and agreeable to their minority; but ours is spiritual.] What is this to them that are put out of that carnal Church state, and kept out of this spiritual Church state too? If they had been admitted into this better state (as no doubt they are) then he had said somewhat. Else is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews? They are put out of the carnal Church state too. But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church; and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church, then to be of theirs ?

Answ. I allege the more spiritual Church state as one reason of God's changing of church membership by birth into church membership by faith, and as a mercy to the catholic Church; For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances, which infants are partakers of in actual possession, and capable of the spirit, though they be not actually visible church members; and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual churchstate. And Mr. B. doth much mistake, as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a privilege or benefit: For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church, yet none of them were given of it in Christ's time, they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peo • le, a generation of vipers, denied the holy one, and the just, and desired a murderer, made the temple a den of thieves, &c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church, then to be of theirs. As for the Jews who believed not, they were justly put out of God's favor, their temple was destroyed, and they cast out of their land for denying Christ: Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually; for they adhere to it unto this day, and it is their curse.

4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal?

Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18. where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh, in contradistinct • on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit, Rom. 9.6. Gal. 6.16. From Rom. 2.28, 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly, of Circumcision, which is outward in the flesh, from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter. From Gal. 4.25, 26, 23, 29. where Jerusalem that then was is contradistingued to Jerusalem above, and the former is in bondage with her children, the later free, the children of the former born after the flesh, the later after the spirit. From Gal. 3.3. where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit, to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh. From Ephes. 2.11. where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands. From Philip. 3.3, 4, 5. where Hebrew descent, and church membership thereby are termed the flesh. From Heb. 9.10. where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances. I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof.

But he further demands,

Answ. Neither the term [Church state] nor [Church call] were devised by me, but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines. I have shown the use of the later before, and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it, and that according to Mr. B. himself: And for the former, me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it, who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher, entitled, De visibles Ecclesiae successient & statu. And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises, when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give instead of it; and if it signify what pleases the speaker, it is so much the better, for that is the use of words; and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities, if it signify; for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light, and not darken with ambiguities: So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation, that his later words cross his former. And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can, I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church itself, nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it; but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence, whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying, numerous or small, rich in knowledge or poor, carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith, more or less of the spirit, the promises, ministry, rites, &c. it hath. Which term [state] comprehends innumerable terms, such as are rich and poor, noble or ignoble, fat or lean, and many more; which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality, relation, or passion, or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine, I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech. But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions, which he must not expect I will answer, as I have done, after this bout.

5. Saith he,

Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholic Church, and so need not prove it; nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer, but for Mr. B. to disprove it. Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down, not without some proof from Scripture; and I may wait long afore either I shall find his pretended ordinance of infant visible Church membership unrepealed proved from Scripture, or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions, and vain exclamations, which I resolve to neglect. And of the former sort are the questions here, which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholic Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members, because they are Toads, Vipers, worse then the aged; whereas I only say, that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national (in which and by reason of which infants were visible Church members, and no otherwise) was in mercy to the catholic Church: Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle, Rom. 11.11, 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles, the fall of them is the riches of the world, the diminishing, decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles. Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men; but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people (of which the infants were a part, and only Church members there, and while that nation were God's Church;) partly through God's contrivance, which was, that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off, and at last both have mercy in their season.

Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein. If this doctrine be true, why may we not expect to be taught, that infants must also be cast out of heaven, in mercy to the whole catholic Church?

Answ. Beca • se we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholic Church is by breaking off • he Jewish Church.

If i • be (saith he) no carnal Church state to have infants in heaven, why is it a carnal Church state which containeth infants in it on earth?

Answ. That any are infants in heaven its not likely. 2. If there should be, yet being fully sanctified, they should not be carnal, but spiritual, and the Church there only consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration; whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Church members by carnal generation, the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was, and not spiritual by faith, as the Scripture makes it, Joh. 1.12, 13. & 3.5, 6. Gal. 3.26, 27.

Again, saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholic Church to have infants kept out of heaven, nor no hurt to the Church to see them there; why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth? or any hurt to the Church to see them here members?

Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it; their non-visible Christian Church membership is a benefit to the Catholic Church in the manner before said, because God hath so ordered it.

But yet (saith Mr. B.) let us come a little nearer; what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters (of which sort the Church hath none) yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love, and that are merciful as their heavenly fa • her is merciful, and who are bound to receive little children in Christ's name, and who are become as children themselves; to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched. But such are all true members of the Church; and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy.

Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church (of which we are speaking) hath no enemies or man-haters. It is not true that we are bound to receive little children in Christ's name; nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched▪ or that they are all unchurched; nor do I think it true th • t all true members of the Church visible, are such as Mr. B. describes. But this I say, the non-visible Church membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe, however it seem to the Church.

Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection, it is a mercy, and ought to seem a mercy, that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Church membership, and by consequent their infant visible Church membership, and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage, and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel, without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good, parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lord's supper as the Jews children were to the Passover.

Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament, much less Evangelical promises, made to believing parents for their seed, nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children, but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit, Phil. 2.1. Yea, whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children, their prosper •• y, rest and peace in their dwellings, &c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate, if without sin, is rather preferred as more happy, 1 Cor 7.14. and the poor and persecuted rather adj • dged blessed then the rich and those that live in p • ace, Matth 5.4, 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood, as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did. The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national, but in being not in the Olive, that is the Church of true believers, but in the national Church Jewish; and that they were not broken off from it, was their unhappiness: and we are to pray, not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish, but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons.

6. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh, yet he hath not mercy on all flesh; all souls are his, yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish; his mercy is over all his works, yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people; he is naturally merciful, yet showeth mercy freely as he will. I say not, he casteth out all infants of the Church out of the Church; yet sure if it were supposed a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out, it seems to follow that God would do it, since all things work for their good, and with his son he gives them all things, Rom. 8.28, 32. 1 Cor. 3.22, 23.

I will tell you, saith Mr. B. how Mr. T. followeth this with examples. He saith, [that the release of the Jews servants, and the consecration of the Nazarites and first born, and the land of Canaan, were all privileges, and yet these are taken away.] To which I answer: There are abundance far greater given in their stead: And what is that then to those that have nothing in their stead? Besides, if Mr. T. think that the mercy of Church membership is of as low a nature as to be Nazarites, or to have Canaan, he is much mistaken.

Answ. Not only these, but other examples, as namely of the Priests and Levites children, who were by inheritance to attend at the Tabernacle, and to be nourished by the offerings, and to be Priests; instead of which, Ministers infants have now no particular mercy, they are not visibly in the order of Priests, as the infants of Aaron's house were: Of the poor, who had tithes and corners of fields, and sheaves fallen, and other provision, and so had the stranger; do show, that a mercy was taken awe • y from infants of Israel, and no particular mercy in the same or the like kind given to infants of Christian people or Ministers in their stead. When Mr. B. sh • ws what those abundance for greater mercies are, which are given in the stead of the release of the Hebrew servants even infants, the restoring their inheritances at the year of Jubilee, the consecration of Nazarites and first born even infants, the reckoning the children of the Priests as heirs to the priesthood, provision for them▪ the poor, the strangers; it is likely the same he alledgeth will serve to sh • w how infants visible Church membership is recompensed by the mercies now given to the whole Church and them. Nor do I think I am mistaken in counting the mercy of infants visible Church membership to be of as low a nature as to be consecrated as Nazarites, or • he first born male which was to be presented to God, or to be reck • ned by descent Priests; but am sure Mr. B. doth over-value the Jew • sh infant visible Church membership, and thereby misleads himself and others: And therefore I desired him in my Letter to set down distinctly what was the benefit and privilege of infant visible Church membership which he asserted; the refusal whereof (when he desired to have a copy of my Sermon, that he might (as his fashion is) cavil, rather then answer it) shows his unwillingness to have his tenet examined, that truth might appear.

He adds. But he saith [that it was a privilege to the Jews to be owned as God's people distinct from the rest of the world, while others were passed by, yet this is repealed in mercy to us Gentiles.] Answ. In my distinctions before you may find this answered. 1. Then it was no mercy to the Jews you think, but to us Gentiles: But our question is, whether it be a mercy to the unchurched infants? 2. The Jews being a Church and people of God, was a mercy; and this God took not from any of them, but those that cast it away: But the restraction of this to them, and the exclu •• on of the Gentiles, was no mercy to them, and this only (with the ceremonial accidents) did God take away by the charge of his Laws. It would have been rather an ad • i • ion to the happiness of the believing Jews, to have the Gentiles taken in, by taking down the partition wall: And so it will be when the Jews are graffed in again, and both made one body. Why else doth the Jewish Church pray for her little sister that had no breasts? And Noah pray, that God would persuade Japheth to dwell in the tents of Sem? Though the restriction therefo • e and the exclusion (which are no mercies to the Jews) be taken away, yet no mercy i • taken from them, but what is supplied with a far grea • er in Christ: And though they partake not of these, yet that is because of their o • n unbelief, who reject it, and not because the new law doth exclude them: For God hath in his new law or Covenant made a deed of gift of Chri •• and all his benefits, to all that will receive him, whether Jew or Gentile, without excluding or excepting any. And for his denying to particular persons the grace of conversion, that is nothing to our present business, as belonging to decree, and not to any change in the laws: And it was denied to many before Christ, and granted to many thousands Jews since Christ; and shall be at last to far more.

Answ. The vanity of his distinctions is shown before; the repeal of the privilege of the Jews mentioned was in mercy to the Jew believer, though chiefly to the Gentiles, and the infants of both, but in justice to the Jewish nation. The Jews being a Church and people of God, was a mercy, an • to be the only nation that were God's people, was an agravation of it: and this God took away from believers, they were put out of the Jewish Church national, Joh. 9.22. It was a mercy that the Jews were the only nation God took for his people, and this God did take away, not by change of his laws, though that followed, but by his severity, R • m. 11.22. breaking off that nation from the Olive. It would have been a happiness to the believing Jews, to have had the Gentiles taken in without dissolving the national Church Jewish, if God had thought it good; but he otherwise determining, it was a mercy to the catholic Church, that they were dissolved. If no mercy be taken from them, but what is supplied with a far greater in Christ; then Christ in the flesh is, instead of the Jewish Church national, and consequently of the infants visible Church membership therein, a far greater mercy, which I said before, and Mr. B. gainsaid. That in God's new Covenant there's no deed of gift of Christ but to the elect, is proved before.

Mr. B. ends thus. And thus you have heard all that Mr. T. upon deliberation hath said to this argument. And yet (would any man think it?) he concludeth that [that this abundant clear answer to all alleged from the visible Church membership of the children of the Jews.] O never let my soul be tainted with this error, which so strangely bereaves men of common ingenuity !

Answ. Let my answer and Mr. Bs. argument be compared, and the Reader judge of our ingenuity. I for my part hope and pray that God will never leave me to be carried away with such frivolous reasonings as these of Mr. B. are.

SECT. LXV. Mr. Bs. Argum. from Matth. 23.37. Revel. 11.15. for infants visible Church membership Ch. 12, 13. are answered.

I Have answered Mr. Bs. 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th. Chapters of the first part of his Book of Baptism in this Review, Part. 1. Sect. 6, 7, 8, 9. I think it not needful as yet to make reply to the exceptions against my answers, and therefore go on to answer Mr. Bs. 12th. Chapt. which begins thus.

Answ. It is not CHRIST JESUS, but Mr. Bs. own shall • wness or prejudice that makes him believe that here is a • y thing for infants visible Church membership. That Jerusalem is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish nation, is more then I find. But that by Jerusalem and her children are not meant infants, is apparent from the text. 1. They are meant by Jerusalem who killed and stoned them that were sent, but they were not infants, Ergo. 2. Becau • e the way whereby Christ would have gathered Jerusalem was by preaching the Gospel to them, as is manifest 1. in that he used no other way. 2. This was the way which he often attempted, which is implied in the phrase, how often would I ? 3. This is the way they refused, implied in the phrase [ and ye would not ] that is, ye would not obey my admonitions of repentance nor believe the Gospel; and so Piscator annal▪ loci saepissime & benignissime à me admoniti, non tamen obtemporare voluistis. 4. From verse. 34.35. where the way by which he would have gathered them, seems to be by sending Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes or Apostles Luk. 11.49. to them, which were not sent to infants. How oft would I have g • thered? That is (say some) by the external ministry of the Prophets sent unto thee, verse. 34, 35. Trap • on Matth. 23.37. 5. The often attempt of gathering here, is the same with the visitation, or over sight Luke 19.44. as the agreement of the expressions and matter in both places compared e • idently shows, now that was by teaching, Luke 1.78, 79. And thus the New Annot. Of thy visitation] as if he had said in thy visitation, in which God manifested himself in my person offering thee mercy. 6. Thus Protestant Divines often expound it, answering Arminians and others, inferring hence resistability of converting grace by man's free • will; as Diodati in his annot. on Matth. 23.37. expresseth their mind, We must of necessity understand this to be meant of the dispensation of outward means by the word▪ exhortations, commandments, &c. Now it cannot be said that Christ would have this way gathered the infants of Jerusalem, for he had said he often by his own, and Prophets and Apostles preaching would or attempted to do it. But this he would nor nor attempted to do to infants, Ergo, they are not meant under the term [ Jerusalem. ] 3. This is proved also from the end of his gathering, which was, that they might be his Disciples, but he never would or did gather any infants to him as his Disciples, Ergo. 4. It is proved also thus. Those only are meant by Jerusalem, whom Christ would have gathered but they would not : But this cannot be said of infants, that they would not, there was no nilling of Conversion in them, Ergo. 5. They are mea • t by Jerusalem who are meant by the City Luk. 19.41. and there they are meant, who v. 42. might have known in that their day the things belonging to their peace, but then they were hid from their eyes. Who knew not the time of their visitation, v. 44. But this is not meant of infants, Ergo.

In answer therefore to Mr. Bs. argument altering the terms [ put out, unchurch, which my doctrine doth not assert] into [ repeal the ordinance of infants visible Church membership ▪ or leave out of his visible Church] I deny the consequence of his major, and deny that which he alledgeth for proof of it, that by Jerusalem is mean • all the people of Jerusalem, even the infants. And to his wish, I return a wish▪ O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted true • hs, as I see in these words to convince me that Christ means no • infants by those he would have gathered unto him, and though I would not have Mr. B. of any man to turn Quaker, yet I think he should rather tremble at the allegation of this text so impertinent to his purpose, and not understand by [ Jerusalem ] Synecdochically the persons of years. Nor would this be anymore to contradict the Scripture at pleasure, or to make it speak only what we list, then for him to understand by [Jerusalem] Synecdochically (as he doth) the Jewish nation, or by [Jerusalem] to understand metonymically the people, even the infants of the City. To make the interpreting of speeches by tropes a contradicting them, or making them speak what they list is such a • oolery, as I should rather have imagined to have come from some woman or Lay-preacher, then from a man of such magnified learning as Mr. B. is, had I not found it printed in his Book. As for what he saith, it is not fully a nation or city without infants, though it were true (as it is not) yet that proves not that infants are meant in every speech of a nation or city, anymore then Math. 24.7. infants shall rise against infants, because nation shall rise against nation, or Matt. 21.10. infants were moved saying, who is this? because the whole city was moved, saying, who is this? And hereby it may he seen how easily Christ might be understood without including infants, and so much the more easily, because though infants were in the Jewish Church, yet Christ who spa • e not of gathering into the Jews Church, but to himself (in whose visible Church were no infants) might be the more readily conceived to except infant • , yea if he had meant infants could not be well understood by them. And for his challenge, I answer, I dare thus expound his gathering, of gathering only the aged into his visible Church, if Mr. B. imagine (as he doth) the similitude of a Hen to be used in vain if infants be not meant, because the Hen gathereth the youngest, by this reason Christ should use the similitude in vain if he would gather any other then infants, since the hen gathereth not hens and old cocks under her wings, but only little chickens. Me thinks by leaving their house desolate, Mr. B. should not mean the unchurching them. For then it will follow, that all the Jewish nation were unchurched (for so he will have meant by Jerusalem ) which will overthrow many of his conceits about making Jewish and Gentile Churches one body, the same▪ the Church not broken off, &c. and prove afore he is aware the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church membership. But enough of the silly insipid arguings (if I may use his language) of this Chapter, let's see whether the next have any better.

Answ. 1. I think this may be said with sense and reason, yea and clear evidence out of the text, that by [Kingdoms of the world, Kingdoms of our Lord and his Ch • ist, or as some copies have it, the Kingdom of the world is become] is not meant the men or members of either Kingdoms, and so neither infant, nor adult persons, but the dominion, power, rule itself which the men of the world had usurped, chiefly Antichrist, which was Christ's before of right, but not till then become his by actual▪ full, and peaceable possession, his enemies or the chief of them being no • till then subdued, but tyranizing over his subjects. And though I confess the term connotes men over whom Christ should have rule, yet the persons ov • r whom Christ should rule then, were not only the Church, but also his enemies, whom he should subdue, and keep under, and judge, Revel ▪ 2 26, 27. That by [Kingdom] is meant Rule, is manifest from many places, M • tth. 6.10, 13. John 18.36. Heb. 1.8. so Revel. 17.17, 18. And that this is the meaning here, seems to me to be manifest, 1. from that which is added, and he shall reign forever and ever ; which being the consequent of the Kingdom or Kingdoms of the world becoming our Lord's and his Christ, it shows, that the Kingdoms note the rule or dominion whereby he reigns, not the persons over whom he reigns. 2. The same is confirmed from v. 17. where the same thing is expressed in those words, We give thee thanks, O Lord God almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned : And wh • rein that is, is expressed v. 18, in judging all, rewarding his servants, destroying the corrupters of the earth. 3. From ch. 12.10. where again the same or like thing is expressed thus, Now is come salvation and strength or power and the Kingdom of our God, and the power or authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down : Where Kingdom and power are put together, to show, that by the Kingdom is not meant the persons over whom the rule is, but the rule itself. 4. It is so to be understood where it is mentioned as I conceive in the sense meant Revel. • 1.15. as namely 1 Cor. 15.24. 2 Tim. 4.1. and other places. 5. Thus Diodati in his Annot. on Revel. 11.15. The Kingdoms] that is to say, Now God reigneth with his son, and that absolutely having subdued all his enemies. 1 Cor. 15.24. that I omit others. 6. This sense is the more confirmed, if it be read as some copies have it, the Kingdom of this world is become. On the other side Mr. Bs. interpretation seems to me either not sense, or not true. For then it should be thus, All the Kingdoms of the world, that is every person in the world, should be Christ's Church, that is, a society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, &c. as he defines the Church, of Baptism, pag. 82. Now can this be good sense to be all the world, the Kingdoms of the world, and to be called or separated from or out of the world? Can all the world be separated from the world! And there is no truth in this interpretation, since it never was nor shall be, that the kingdoms of the world, that is, every person old and young in all the kingdoms of the world, shall become Christ's Church. For then Christ should have no enemies to remove out of his Kingdom, contrary to the Parable, Matth. 13.30. expounded v. 38.39, 40, 41, 42. Now if this be the sense, then it makes nothing for infants visible Church membership, nor by [kingdoms] is all the members of a kingdom meant, and so infants, but both the consequence of Mr. Bs. major is justly denied, and the inference from the consequent of it. For if it be meant of Christ's rule (as the texts show) though it connote the persons over whom the rule is, yet they are not thereby proved Church members; for in the sense there meant, the rule or reign is over enemies as well as subjects: Yea, if the reign were over subjects, and infants comprehended, yet since the reign over them is only invisible, this cannot prove infants visible Church members.

Nor are Mr. Bs. reasons of any force to prove that Revel. 11.15. by the kingdom of Christ must be meant the Church. For it is not true, that the constant phrase of Scripture calls Christ's Kingdom his Church and Conversim. For though I deny not that • he Church is termed the kingdom of Christ, yet I deny this is the constant phrase of Scripture to call the kingdom of Christ the Church, much less Conversim. • he places alleged before, with many more, do evince the contrary; yea, there appear to me but few places wherein the Church is termed the kingdom of Christ. I am not yet fully resolved, that it is anywhere so meant, except in that Matth. 13.41. though I deny not the fitness of the expression.

Nor doth his reason hold, that here it cannot be meant of Christ's Kingdom in the largest sense, as he overruleth common soci • ties and things ; For though it be true, that in some sort so the Kingdoms of the world were ever his, that is, he did always so order them, that they passively did his will; yet it is certain, that in the reign of Antichrist the kingdoms of the world, that is, the rule which was exercised was not actively for God or Christ, but as it is expressly said, Revel 13.4. • hey worshipped the Dragon who gave power to the beast, blasphemed God, made war with the saints, overcame them; the beast had power over all kindreds and tongues and nations, so that all that dwelt on the earth should worship him, whose names were not written in the Lambs book of life: and so they gave their Kingdom to the beast, Revel. 17.12, 13, 14, 17. though they did God's will But after the Lamb overcame them, v. 14. and the Kingdoms of the world were his, when the Kings did bate the whore, and make her des • lite, &c. So that this may well be expounded thus, the Kingdoms of the world, that is, the rule which the Kings of the world have exercised for the Whore shall be so changed, that whether out of revenge of the mischiefs the Whore hath done them, or out of love to Christ, they shall hate her, and execute Christ's doom upon her, which was not always done. And it seems a piece of inconstancy in Mr. B. who would not have the kingdoms of the world taken for a part in the forepart of this chapter, and yet denies it to be taken in the largest sense in the later part. And how the infant Church membership of Christians can be gathered from the term, Kingdoms of the world becoming Christ's, more then any others, I see not. But I proceed.

2. Suppose it were granted, that by the Kingdoms of Christ were meant men, and the Church of Christ, Revel. 11.15. yet sure it is far more likely that by the Kingdom of Christ should be meant the invisible, then the visible Church. For the invisible Church either solely or chiefly is called the kingdom of Christ, and he is styled the King of Saints, Rev. 15.3. and Mr. B. saith here, Christ is King and Savior of the same society. But in this sense I should grant the conclusion, that infants must be members of Christ's Kingdom. And sure • y the visible Church-members who are not true believers, have not Christ to rule over them, but are enemies to Christ, and Satan's subjects, and therefore not truly but putatively only in Christ's kingdom, nor they any part of it. They are not children of the kingdom, Matth. 13.38.

3. But were it granted that Revel. 11.15. is meant the visible Church, yet that therefore infants must be a part of it, because they are a part of a Kingdom follows not, for Mr. B. saith, I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdom and Jerusalem, &c. is taken for a part. Which is enough to show that the argument is not good which he useth, For it must rest on this proposition, where Jerusalem is mentioned there all Jerusalem is meant, where Kingdoms are mea • t whole Kingdoms are meant, and therefore infants: which propositions are co • tradicted by Mr. B. himself, and therefore it the whole controversy were referred to these two texts Matth. 23.37. Rev. 11.15. to decide, Mr. Bs. cause would be lost for want of proof, even from his own confession. Nor doth Mr. B. produce anything to prove that by [Kingdoms Revel. 11.15.) is meant the whole o • a Kingdom even the infants, but only prattles that which me thinks a learned man should be a •• amed of. For there is no color of reason to charge them who expound [ Kingdom ] by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part, with making their own Creed without Scripture, taking words always in an improper sense, making human language useless, putting by any Scripture such as are produced for Christ's Godhead, when he himself saith it is sometimes in Scripture so taken, and gives no proof of its being taken otherwise here. Yea, by rejecting such exposition without rea • on Mr. B. may be m • re truly said to make his own Creed without Scripture, to make the Scripture unintelligible, human language useless, to fortify Biddle a • d other deceivers, in their gross opinions of the Anthropomorphites, and others, insomuch that I think if the Arians were refuted no better then Mr. B. doth here the expounding of Kingdoms and Jerusalem synecdochically, Arianism would quickly prevail, and errors easily take, especially with Scholars.

4. Lastly, were it granted that by [ Kingdoms ] were meant the visible Church; and that infants were a part of the Kingdom thus meant, yet this very text, and that according to Mr Bs. own reasoning▪ would prove the repeal o • their Church membership till the accomplishment of the thing meant Rev. 11.15. which whether it be yet, or shall be till the day of judge • meant is very uncertain, For Mr. B. here reasons thus, it cannot be meant of Christ's kingdom in the larger sense▪ for so the kingdoms of the world were ever the kin • doms of the Lord and his Christ, and it could not be said that now they are become so In like • anner I may say, if the visible Church membership of infants were meant Rev. 11.15. then it was not so before the 7th. trumpet sounded; for it is said, then the kingdoms of the world were become the kingdoms of Christ, if they were then become they were not before, and consequently infants visible church membership not before. Now when the 7th. trumpet sounded is uncertain; Mr. Brightman makes it to begin at Qu. Elizabeth's reign, the New Annotations when Antichrist is weakened, Mr. Mede at the imperial reign of Christ in the great day of judgment, which v. 17, 18. do favor. And if infants be not visible Church members till then, when perhaps there shall be no infants at all, Mr. B. will have but a very cold suit of it, if the deciding of the whole controversy, whethe • infants must be Church members, be referred to this text alone. But enough, if not too much of these ridiculous though confident allegations of Mr. B.

SECT. LXVI. Mr. Bs. 9th, 10th, 11. Arg. concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th, 15th, 16th, Chapters part. 1. of Bapt. to prove their visible Church membership, are answered.

Answ. If Mr. B. had set down, as I desired him in my Letter, what the benefit, or privilege is of infant visible Church membership which he asserts unrepealed, and what infants lose by not being in the Christian Church visible, the Reader with myself might have considered this argument more exactly: But till that be done, no man can exactly tell how to compare their former and later conditions wherein they are better or worse, nor how from the equal goodness of their condition their Church membership is inferred. And for my part, I think such kind of arguings as these, to infer things that only are by Divine institution, are mere devices of men's wit, and Mr. B. in using them (as indeed they are his only strength he hath in this point, for all the texts he brings are quite from the matter, and some so manifestly impertinent, that a good text man would be ashamed ever to produce them as he doth) doth but show that he rests more on popular arguments which moves men's affections then Scripture proofs, though most deceitfully like an Impostor he entitle his Book, Plain Scripture proof of infants Church membership and Baptism, when there is not a text that is plain for it, scarce any that hath any show of it. But lest this argument be thought unanswerable, I shall examine it. A worse or a better condition are comparative terms, and as Aristotle saith in his Categ. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nothing is said to be great or small by itself, but as compared with another, so nothing is better or worse by itself, but as compared with another. It is necessary then that we examine the estate of b • lieving Jews children before and since Christ's coming: The estate of the believing Jews children before Christ, may be conceived to be either in actual possessions or in promises. In actual possessions they had this privilege, that they were a part of that nation which was then God's people, separated from other people by circumcision, laws, temple, inheritance in Canaan, priesthood, and the children of the priests had this privilege, that the males were to succeed in the priesthood, and their children to be nourished of the tithes, offerings, first fruits, the poor by a tithe and other ways. The promises were either of special privilege, as that Christ should come out of that nation, or of temporal blessings, as that while they kept God's laws they should dwell in Canaan and prosper there, or of saving blessings. These did belong only to some believing Hebrews children, not to all, to Isaac not to Ishmael, to Jacob not to Esau, the rest were only temporal benefits, and were accompanied with a yoke of laws and rites intolerable. The children of believing Jews condition since Christ, is either in respect of saving blessings, and so it is either the same which was before, or better in respect of the easier way of coming to the knowledge of Christ, in respect of the temporals. So it is in some respect worse, they are liable more to persecution with their parents, in some respects better, in that they with th • ir parents a • e exempt from the legal bon • age, which they and their parents as pa •• of that nation o • visible Church were obnoxious to. So that in some sense the antecedent or minor is granted, in some sense denied, 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 man's happiness, but a Savior 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, since this leaving out was only an act of Sovereignty 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 • thought a Christian could scarce 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 sti • l avouch as part of my faith, and me thinks if Mr. B. be a Chri •• ian, and not a Jew, he should believe it too. For were not the Jews infan • s by their visible Church membership bound to be circumcised, and to keep Moses Law? was not thi • an heavy and intolerable yoke? I • it not a mercy to be freed from it? What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infan • s of believing Jews now lose, by not being Christian visible Church members? I challenge Mr. B. to show me any one particular real Evangelical blessing, which doth not a • well come to an infant of a believer unbaptiz • d, or non-admitted to visible Church membership 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 savi • g grace, or protection, or other blessings, are not belonging to them because unbaptized, not admitted visible Church members? 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 clear truth, but like an Orator raise passion without judgment, and end • 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 conscie • 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 be out of the Church now, then to be in it then, meaning that nonvisible Church membership to infants now is a better condition then visible Church membership 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 alleged; For that speech is meant of Jerusalem, or Zion 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. Jerusalem 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 follows 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 enchurched 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 somebody show it: which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon, that infants now have no privilege at all instead of their church membership.

Answ. If the Covenant be meant (as I have proved before, sect. 64. it is) of the Covenant of the Law concerning settling 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 bet • 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 entering 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, si • h God's 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 God's laws, it being made conditionally, and so not all the enchurched 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 enchurched Jews. Nor is the second conclusion true; there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who are now no visible church members as was then, to the elect now as was then, to whom alone it was made then and now. And as for mercy answerable to visible church membership of infants, enough is said here, Sect. 64.

Mr. B. adds. 4. I argue from Rom. 3.1. What advantage hath the Jew, and what profit the circumcision? much every way, &c. If the Jew circumcised enchurched infants had much advantage every way, and thos • without the Church have none; then it is better be in their Church then without the Church: But the former is plain in the Text; therefore the later is certain.

Answ. The advantage the Jew had, was when they were the people of God above them who were heathen infidels, not above Christian believers: Now it is true, that it was better to be in their Church, then to be without the Church, as heathen infidels and their children were, But this doth not prove what is to be proved, that the condition of Jews infants in their Church visible, is better then of Christian believers infants now no visible Church members. Nevertheless the speech of the Apostle is not meant of Jew infants; for the instance he gives of committing to them the Oracles of God, is not true of the infants; and therefore it is denied, that Mr. Bs. antecedent is plain in the text in respect of the forepart of it: And it is false also, that the infants of Christians, though not Christian visible church membership, have no such advantage as the Jews had; For in this thing the advantage of the Christians infant is more then of the Jews, since the Scriptures being now more common and better cleared, they may sooner know them then the Jews infants could

5. Saith he, Again from Rom. 9.4. I argue thus: If then to the Jews pertained the adoption, the covenants, the promises, &c. but no such thing to them without the Church; then it is worse to be out of the Church, then to be in it as they were: But the former is the words of the Holy Ghost; therefore the consequent is certain.

Answ. The consequence is denied. For if this were true, it would as well prove it to have been a better condition to be in the visible Church Jewish then, then to be in the Christian Church visible now. For now those things expressed Rom. 9.4, 5. belong not to them who are in the visible Church Christian; yea, it is now Christ is come the benefit of the Church to be freed from them, I mean some of them, as the services which were in sacrifices, &c. the glory which was the Ark, the Covenant, to wit, the Tables of stone, the adoption which excluded the Gentiles from being God's people; and concerning the other three, the giving of the Law, descent from the Fathers, Christ's consanguinity, they are such as cannot be to any other, and are all recompensed abundantly by the coming of Christ, the gift of the Spirit, preaching of the Gospel, without infants visible church membership. And therefore though there be no such thing as those things mentioned, Rom. 9.4, 5. to them that are out or in the visible Church Christian, yet there are better things to Christians, which make their condition, and the • r infants not actually visible church members, better then the Jewish churchstate at the best.

6. Saith he, If it be better to be in God's house and family then out, and in his visible Kingdom then out; then it is better to be in the Church (though but as the Jews were) then out: But the former is evident; therefore the later.

Answ. It is true, it is better to be in God's house and family then out, and so infants may be though they be not in the Christian Church visible; and though they be not in Christ's visible Kingdom, yet they may be in his invisible, which is most truly his Kingdom and house, and this estate is better then to be in the Jewish Church visible. But it was not better with infants by virtue of their visible church membership, then it is with believers infants without it, since they are freed from the yoke of bondage the Jews were under, and have equal portion, if not more of Evangelical grace then they had, and therefore the consequence is denied.

7. Saith Mr. B. If it be better to be a sanctified peculiar people of God, then to be none such (but an excluded common unclean people;) then it is better to be in the Church (though but as the Jews were) then out of the Church: But the former is most certain; therefore the l • ter. The consequence is plain, in that all the Church, both Jews and Gentiles are properly a peculiar people separated or sanctified to God; and so are they still called in the Old Testament and New: And therefore those without the Church must needs be an excluded people (even as election of some implieth passing by or rejecting of others;) and therefore are called common and unclean frequently.

Answ. This being understood of the visible Church, it is false that those without the Church visible must needs be an excluded people from God; for then all abortives, and still-born children, persons dying without signs sensible of faith and repentance though before God believers, excommunicate persons should b • excluded from God. And as for Mr. Bs. proof, that the Church are properly a peculiar people separated or sanctified to God, this cannot be true in reality (which must make their condition better) but only of those who are of the invisible also, of which infants may be, though not of the visible; of the rest it is true only in appearance, which makes their condition not better in the Church, but worse then of those without, since the odiousness of their hypocrisy provokes God against them the more, though cloaked from men by their fair profession.

8. Sai • h he▪

Answ. Mr. B. should prove the minor (which I deny) that God doth not bestow usually so many or greater mercies to infants now not visible Christian church members, as he did to infants in the Jewish Church visible; (For so must his minor be, if his conclusion oppose my position:) which since he proves not, my denial is sufficient answer.

9. Saith he,

Answ. Mr. B. brings no proof for his minor, and therefore it is enough for me to deny it, as being false concerning abortives, still-born, infant children elect, and others.

10. Saith he,

Answ. Mr. B. should prove his minor, that Christ hath promised these things to infants in the visible Church Jewish, and not to infants of believers, who are not visible church members Christian; for which, though he talk of multitudes of texts, yet I shall not believe he hath any till he produce them.

He adds.

Answ. And so say I, if I can prevail with them, or for them.

Mr. B. adds,

Again Mr. B.

Answ. The words, Revel. 22.15. without are dogs, the verse foregoing shows to be meant of being without the city where the blessed enter; and it being compared with Rev. 21.8. thence appears, that they that are without are cast into the lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death : which if he say (as his words intimate) of all that are not visible church members, he pronounceth a bloody sentence against millions that are in heaven, and must be a hundred times more uncomfortable to parents concerning their abortive still-born children, then anything I ever held. And his abuse of Christ's words, Matth. 15.26. Mark 7 27. is yet more gross, in alleging them after that, Rev 22.15. as if dogs, Matth. 15.26. were of the same sense with dogs in the other, whereas Rev. 12.15. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and doth note such as rend them that give holy things to them, Matth. 7.6. but Matth. 15.26. Mark 7.27. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , little dogs and doth not note persons so called from their profane, • ischievous, impious behavior, but in opposition to children, that is Jews, such as were of G •• tile descent, and therefore accounted unclean And the application of them is as bad, as if the not ma • ing infants Christian visible church members, made them dogs in either sense: Whereas to make the • dogs, as Rev. 22.15. is meant, is not only to make them non-visible church members, but also of most wicked manners and damned wretches; and the term dogs, as used Matth. 15 26. might be applied as well to visible church members not Jewish, such as Cornelius, Acts 10.2. as to those out of it. Nor doth it appear that our Lord Christ either admitted the woman of Canaan into his Church or termed her daughter (as Mr. Bs. words intimate) but woman after her manifestation of faith. So that Mr. B. as his wont is, doth profanely abuse the Scripture, to make his adversaries tene • appear odious without cause. What he adds, I say therefore as Peter whither shall we go, if we forsake the Church? It is good for us to be here: those that will needs think it better to be out of the Church then in it, let them go; they need no Anathema, nor excommunication, seeing they think it such a mercy to be without the Church, I will not say of it as Paul of his ship, except ye abide in it, ye cannot • ee saved, and so I conclude, Christ did not come to believers hurt, by unchurching their children, doth but show his malignant disposition to spit as much venom as he can against his antagonists and their doctrine, calumniating it as tending to forsaking the Church, thinking it better to be out of the Church then in it, thinking it a mercy to be without the Church, Christ did come to believers hurt by unchurching their children, none of which follows from my tenet, but the charging of them on it showing Mr. Bs. spightfulness towards me, and the truth, which the Lord forgive him.

In the same vein of scribbling, Mr. B. proceeds thus ch. 15. My 10th. arg is this from Heb. 8.6. [ Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises. Heb. 7.22. And the Author of a better testament. Rom. 5.14, 15, 20. Where sin abounded grace much more abounded Ephes. 3.19, 20. That ye may comprehend the height, and breadth, and length, and depth, and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge] with a hundred the like places; from whence I argue thus, If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now (in regard of their children's happiness and their parents comfort therein) then it was before Christ's coming, then our children ought to be Church members: (and consequently that ordinance and merciful gift is not repealed.) But all the said texts and many more show that the Church of Christ is not in a worse condition now then it was then (but inconceivably better:) therefore our children ought to be Church members, as well as theirs was then. I have before proved that it is worse to be out of ehe Church then in it; and then nothing else can be said against this argument that I know of.

Answ. That Mr. B. hath not proved anything he should have proved in contradiction to my tenet is before shown. To the argument here made I answer, 1. by denying the syllog • sm to be right in form for want of putting in the minor, those words ( in regard of their children's happiness and their parents come • ort therein ) and adding in the minor those words ( but inconceivably better ) which were not in the major, whereby the syllogis • is monstrous consisting of • our or five terms. 2. Letting that pass I deny the consequence of the major, and aver that though our infants be not visible Church members now, yet the Church of Christ is not in a worse state now (in regard of their children's happiness and their parents comforts therein) then it was before Christ's come • ing, but inconceivably better, in regard of the coming of Christ in the flesh, the gift of the spirit, the preaching of the gospel, &c. 3. That none of the texts speak anything for Mr. Bs. purpose, but rather against it. In the first it is said the Covenant of which Christ is mediator is better then that of which Moses or Aaron were mediators, and that it is established on better promises, the former containing for the most part promises of ear • hly blessings in Canaan, and that promise which was of righteousness, was upon the condition of keeping the Law, without promise of the spirit; now the new Covenant promises righteousness, forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ, with a promise of the spirit. But these promises belong not to the Church as it is visible, but as it contains the elect, of which sort infants may be though they be not visible Church members, there's not a word of promise that the visible Church shall consist of a whole nation, of all sorts of people in a nation infants and elder, much less shall consist of more sorts of people then were in the Jewish Church, but of more ample mercies spiritual to the elect, who were all of the invisible Church though not of the visible, and among them infants, abortives, still born chi • dren, which could not be of the visible; and therefore to speak truth, parents have more comfort by this Covenant both for themselves and children, in that it assures more ample grace, and that to more then visible members under the New Testament. The same answer is to be given to Heb. 7.22. though • he word be not as Mr. B. here reads it [author] but [surety.] The next text speaks of the abounding of grace by Christ beyond the evil of sin by Adams transgression, nothing at all of the enlargement of the visible Church since Christ's coming in respect of the sorts of members, over that which the visible Church Jewish had. Yea such a position as it hath not the least footing in the text, so would it not stand with Mr. Bs. and other Paedobap • ists doctrine, that the visible church membership is a privilege of believers children: but in respect of extent of persons, it was better with the visible Church then, since it comprehended serva • ts, and the bought children of strangers. And for the last text, to imagine that the love of Christ is every whit the less if infants be not visible church members, is such a conceit as I judge a mere dotage. But there is more of it in that which follows.

Further, saith Mr. B. I might prove it out of Ephes. 2.12. They that are out of the Church are said to be strangers to the Covenant, and without hope, and without God in the world, in comparison with those within the Church. O how little then do they apprehend that height and depth! &c. or know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge, who think that Christ will unchurch all the infants of believers now, that took them in so tenderly in the time of Moses? How insensible do they appear to be of the glorious riches of the Gospel, and the free abundant grace of Christ, who have such unworthy thoughts of him, as if he would put all our children out of his Church? How little know they the difference between Christ and Moses, that think they might then be church members and not now? And yet (oh the blindness▪) these men do this under pretence of magnifying the sperituality of the Gospel privileges▪ As if to he a member of Christ's Church were a carnal thing • ; or as if the visible Church were not the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies !

Answ. The Apostle doth not say they that are out of the Church anymore then they that are uncircumcised are without hope, without God, nor doth he speak comparatively but absolutely. Nor doth he speak universally of all without the Church, but particularly of the Ephesians, nor of them as out of the Church universal but Jewish, nor this as they were merely negatively or privatively out for want of not taking on them the yoke of Moses Law, but as they walked after the course of the world v. 2, 3. So that these things are not said of them barely as nonvisible church members then in the Jewish Church as infants are now in the Christian (for then these things might have been said of Cornelius and his house as well as of them, who were uncircumcised, not in the Commonwealth of Israel ) but as they were idolaters, alienated from the life of God, and so were neither members of the Church visible, nor invisible of true believers at that time. Therefore to charge us with making the estate of infants of believers by our doctrine as the estate of those mentioned Ephes. 2.12. is a mere calumny tending to nothing else but indirectly to create prejudice in men against the truth. And of the same kind is that which follows, which insinuates as if by denying infants visible church membership, we lessened Christ's love, were insensible of it, and the glorious riches of the Gospel, made Christ less tender now of infants of believers then in Moses time, and had such unworthy thoughts of Christ, as if he would put all our children out of his Church, and knew not the difference between Christ and Moses, all which are mere flams and frivolous false accusations, fit to take with shallow Paedobaptists, who are caught with flourishes of Rhetoric rather then solid reason. And for that which he censures as my blindness, I may rather admire his in not discerning it. For however to be a member of Christ's Church may be more then a carnal thing, yet to be a visible Church member by natural descent without faith is but a carnal thing, and in this respect the Church Jewish was more carnal then the Christian Church, as the Scriptures intimate, though they were the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies. The rest that follows is in the same calumniating vein, for we say as the Apostle Gal. 4.27. that is, that the new Covenant or Gentile Church hath more children then the Jewish, in that there were more believers in the world on the preaching of the Gospel as is said Revel. 5.9. th • n in the national Church Jewish, nor do we, as Mr. B. belies us, make all or any of the children of the new Covenant or Gentile Church cast out, for t • ey only are those who are by promise, born after the spirit, that is, true believers v. 28, 29. and not as ignorantly and fondly Mr. B. imagines all the infant children of Gentile believers. Nor do we by our doctrine contradict the Apostles words Heb. 12.40. which are ridiculously applied to infants visible Church membership. For the better thing provided for us in that which the believers afore Christ received not, which is by some conceived to be heaven, but generally Protestant Divines understand it of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, and the clear knowledge of him, which if true, proves what I av • r▪ that▪ Christ's exhibition in the flesh, the gift of the spirit, and the revelation of the Gospel, and the taking in of the Gentiles, are instead of that visible Church membership the Jews had, and all the privileges annexed. However it cannot be infants visible Church membership as Mr. B. makes it, for that they had as Mr. B. asserts, and therefore the denying of it by me, makes not us in so much worse a condition then they. Nor do we by denying infants visible Church membership aver the partition wall taken down Ephes. 2.14. by Christ to be in part standing, For the partition wa • l • s clearly meant of the body of Ceremonies, and necessity of repairing to the Temple and taking the yoke of Moses Law on them, which kept the Gentiles from joining with the Jews 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 itself, 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 descent, doth keep up the partition wall in true construction, since the way of pulling down the parti • ion wall by God, ha • h been by making all one body through faith, the succession of which in the place of Circumcision and the Jewish Church membership, is the doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. and elsewhere, as is shown before.

Mr. B. continues the same prattle Ch. 15. thus.

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 church membership did infer their destruction: which is most palpably false, since neither were all church members visible saved, as v. g. Ishmael, Esau ; nor all non-visible church members 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 show me what benefit the infants of believers now do lose by not being Christian visible church members which tends to their destruction, and what is the benefit of infant visible Christian church membership which is for their salvation, which they have not though they be not visible church members, I mean real and not mere 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 only 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 entered 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 only as proselytes of the gate. 3. That though there were in the Jewish Church other then Abraham's seed, yet they were all of the Hebrew Commonwealth. 4. That many of those church members had no part in any of the promises made to Abraham. And I think this argument of Mr. B. takes only with them who superficially look into the thing, as Mr. B. hath done.

SECT. LXVII. Mr. Bs. 12 th. arg. ch. 17. part 1. of Baptism, from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is answered, and my answers vindicated.

CH. 17. he proceeds thus.

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 the Dispute, which though imperfect, yet both agree, that the argument then was • his, They who solemnly entered into Covenant with God were visible church members: But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcis • d did so, Ergo. Mr. B. himself in his Corrective, sect. 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entered into Covenant with infants to take them for his people, and to be their God, and consequently made them church members. The form here used doth vary the conclusion, and the medium and particularly the term [ who solemnly entered into Covenant with God ] into this [ were entered into Covenant with God ] and in his Correct. sect. 5. into this [ God entered into Covenant with infants to take them for his people, and to be their God ] between which there is so great a difference, that as the argument was framed in the Dispute, I should not deny the major ; but as there it is framed, I should deny the consequence, it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people, and to be their God, who neither are nor ever shall be visible church members; as elect pe • sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested▪ &c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used. And 1. I grant that the church membership of the infants which did pass into Covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is not repealed: For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed, nor it being non • ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right. 2. I grant also that God's Covenant of grace, or his Gospel covenant is not repealed, that is, changed into another Covenant. 3. I grant also that invisible church membership is built on the Covenant of grace, or the Gospel covenant, or is inseparably conjunct with it. But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible church membership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entered into there was the Gospel covenant of grace. 3. I say, that if it were, yet it follows not that infant visible church membership is not ceased, or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed. But let us view Mr. Bs. proof.

1. Saith he, Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thousand people, that the infants were entered into any such Covenant, against the plain letter of the Text: Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason (as you may see in the Dispute, if out.) If plain Scripture will not satisfy these men, why then do they call for Scripture? The words are, Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Officers, Elders, and all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water, that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, that he may establish thee today for a people unto himself, and that he may be to thee a God, &c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Covenant, I question whether he believe this to be the word of God: For how should it be spoken plainer?

Answ. The thing which I denied was, that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant, which Mr. B. affirmed, and I gave the reason, because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant: And when Mr. B. replied, that the parents did it for them, I answered, the parents act for them might bind them, but yet it is not their act, nor that which makes a visible churchmember; and sure had I conceived his minor so meant [ that the infants did by their parents visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant ] I should have granted it, and denied his major [They who visibly and solemnly entered into Covenant with God by their parents act for them, were visible church members ] Now this answering of mine he endeavored then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might b • to me, though what ever imperfection there were in my answer (which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it) it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words, and his captious taking advantage from my words, and not explaining his own, which made me answer somewhat perplexedly. But the matter being now in print, let's view the Dispute as i • stands in the Books. I had said in my Sermon, and after in my Antidote, sect. 5. that [ thou] v. 12. doth not necessa • ily comprehend the little ones▪ To this Mr. B. in his Correct. pag. 249. replies, 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience, or judgment ; which is not worth answering, 2. Do you not know, saith he, that [thou] is a collective term, usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people, except any be particularly excepted ? Answ. I do know it is a collective term, ye • often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech, though not p • rticularly. And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2, 3, 4, 5. Deut. 30.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. And in some of these, v. 2. thou and thy children, v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed, v. 19. thou and thy seed, Deut. 29.29. us and our children, are so expressly distinguished, that I am much confirmed that [thou] Deut. 29.12. doth not comprehe • d the little ones, v. 11.

3. Saith he, Are not little ones here named? and yet are they excluded?

Answ. T • ey are named, v. 11. yet not meant by [ thou] v. 12.

4. Saith he, Why should Moses say, here stand your children and wives, that not they but you might enter into Covenant?

Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there, v. 11. and yet Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not their fathers? v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more sol • mnity of the thing, but that some should act in the name of the whole people, and therefore men • ion of all, v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal, v. 12. restrained only to the representatives.

5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant? why else were they circumcised, which is the seal of the Covenant?

Answ. 1. Circumcision is nowhere called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant, and how far I allow it, may be seen sect. 31. 2. Infants were circumcised, not because they were in Covenant, those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised. 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham, all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law, some of them in the Covenant or promise of saving grace made to the elect, none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising, which is that alone which I deny, and which makes visible church members in the Christian Church.

6. Saith Mr. B. I desire no means to convince any man of your strange abuse of the Text, but only that he will read it. [Ye stand this day all of you, &c. and that he may be to thee a God] He that can considerately believe Mr. T. that the word [thou] v. 12. doth not necessari • y comprehend the little ones, if I knew him, I would tell him, that I will not undertake by Scripture to convince him of anything at all. And I say again in sobriety, that if the Papists had as plain Scripture for their Religion as it differs from ours, I would not delay a week, but would turn Papist, &c.

Answ. Mr. Bs. words only express his confidence in his conceit, which in this and many more things I conceive to come from his hasty determinations, without weighing all objections to the contrary. But I desire both him and the Reader to let me know what that entering into Covenant is which may be termed the infants act, afore he censure my interpretation of [ thou ] as not comprehending little ones necessarily, but as noting some instead of the rest, as a strange abuse of the Text; sure it was no act of words or sign showing any consent or assent to the Covenant or Oath of God: And if, as Piscator conceives in his scholie, it were by passing through (as the word in the Hebrew is) the • arts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the covenant, I say again, surely neither little ones, nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the the beasts divided, but some instead of the rest. I think they will not say, it was their bare presence which was the entering into Covenant; for their standing there was before it, and the entering into Covenant a consequent of it. I do not accuse him, as he knows who hath done, of being a Papist; nor dare I absolve Mr. B. from yielding too much in some of his writings for Papists, Arminians, and Socinians advantage, in s • eking to avoid Antinomianism and Anabaptism. But I hope both Mr. B. and his Reader will be more sober and wise then to go over to the Papists upon this declaration of Mr. B. who if he did not suggest to the people as if it were my impudence to deny it at the Dispu • e, I was mistaken, and so were others, and I entreat him to pardon my mistake. But Mr. B. adds.

Where he saith, that [you] v. 14. is distinguished from [them that stand, &c.] I answer : 1. I think not; but from them that were absent: q. d. not with you only, but (both) with him that is here (that is you) and him that is not here.

Answ. I find no interpreter who doth not render •• v. 15. by the adve • sative, and the Tigurine Divines render it sed et but also, which sh • ws a plain distinction of [ you, v. 14.] from him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God ; and if I understand anything in this kind, Mr. Bs. exposition is not good sense, to expound not with you only, but with him that is here with us that is you. For v. • 5. him that standeth here is opposed to you, v. 14. and you only being an exclusive term, must exclude the rest, and when it is said [ with us ] meaning himself, and [ you] v. 14. it is mere nonsense to expound it thus, him that standeth with us, if us comprehend him that standet • there, as it doth according to Mr. Bs. exposition. Besides, the different numbers of [ him that standeth here with us ] and [ you ] do show that they are not the same. And I think I may say as Mr. B. I desi • e no means to convince any man of Mr. Bs. strange exposition, but only that he will read the Text.

But he saith. 2. Were it otherwise, yet it were only from the people of other nations that stood among them.

Answ. 1. If Mr. B. mean thy stranger which is in thy Camp, v. 11. I expect some reason why [you only] v. 14. should exclude them more then the little ones and wives; rather me think • [you only] should include those men • ioned v. 10. and him that standeth with us here this day should mean those v. 11. And the plain sense seems to be this, that though the Captains, Elders, Officers, men of Israel who were to enter into Co • enant, did by themselves only covenant, yet Moses in God's stead did make that Covenant and Oath not only with them, to whom his speech was directed, but also with the rest, v. 1 • .2. If he mean the strangers not of that congregation or Church of Israel, surely the Covenant was not made with them, as here Moses