Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Mr. B. adds of me. Where he saith [some entered into Covenant in behalf of the rest] I answer: 1. God entered into Covenant on his part immediately, or by Moses the Mediator with them all, and not with some only.

Answ. Be it so, yet on the other part some entered into Covenant in behalf of the rest, and so [ thou] v. 12. comprehends not little ones, v. 11. for sure if in behalf of any some entered into Covenant, and [ thou ] comprehend not them, them they were the little ones.

2. Saith he, I doubt not but the parents entered their children into Covenant, and not the infants themselves, which shows, that God hath given parents this interest and authority.

Answ. 1. This is a confession of what I aver, and of which Mr. B. and his followers have made such exclamations against me. For if [ thou v. 12.] entered themselves into Covenant, and infants entered not themselves into Covenant, then infants are not comprehended under [ thou, v. 12.] But so it is. Ergo. The consequence is plain of itself, the minor is for the first part the words of the Text, unless Mr. B. will say, that thou shouldest enter into Covenant is not, that • hou shouldest enter into Covenant thyself, which is a gross absurdity; and the other pa • t is Mr. Bs. own: and thus Mr. B. hath justified me in that which he counted so strange an abuse of the Text. 2. For my part, I doubt whether the parents entered the children into Covenant, and do rather conceive that the Captains, Elders, Officers, v. 10. did enter into Covenant by some solemn act of passing between the parts of a beast divided, or otherwise instead of the children, wives, and servants, v. 11. and not the parents for the infants, 1. because the distinct mention of those, v. 10. under the titles there used, do intimate that they were representatives of those v. 11. now v. 10 persons are not expressed under the ti • le of parents, but under other relations: 2. Because it being a national covenanting, it seems most suitable to the end of it, that it was done by national Officers: 3. If there were any other then those persons, the solemnity could not be likely done with decency, the number being so great as could not hear Moses, nor do such acts as might signify the covenanting: 4. Because it was so at other times, Exod. 19.7. Josh. 9.15, 19. which if true, this place proves not that God had given parents the interest and authority to covenant for their children: 5. The wives were parents as well as the husbands, but it is not probable that the wives did covenant for the children, therefore not the parents as parents, but under some other consideration.

3. Saith Mr. B. But that any other that had the use of reason should not enter their own consent is a fiction not to be admitted: And yet Mr. T. in his confutation Sermon, excludeth the wives from a personal covenanting, as well as the infants; but barely on his own authority: Nay, he saith, it was only the captains and Officers, though the Covenant is made with the rest.

Answ. I have given my reasons for what I conceive, I impose them not on others, it is sufficient for present that I have vindicated my assertion so much inveighed against by Mr. B. that [thou] v. 12. doth not necessarily comprehend infants.

2. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. I do confess there was much time wasted in the Dispute, and that my answers were varied according to my several apprehensions of Mr. Bs. meaning, which by reason of his ambiguities and uncertain expressions I could not be assured of, nor would he be brought to explain anything to me, but what I could force him to by distinction, which yet he shifted off, that I might be still at a loss what to determine. First he asserted a law of admitting infants visible church members unrepealed, which I conceived was that of circumcision, and thereupon denied infants in the wilderness to have been visible church members, meaning solemnly admitted, in which sense I meant that church membership was not then without Circumcision. But when he denied, he meant Circ • mcision, I pressed him to tell what other law there was, which he then did not, but went to prove them church members, which I confessed, if not understood as so admitted, but as part of that people as the women were. Secondly, when I found he used not the term visible church members as it is taken by Protestant writers for those that professed the Christian faith, I denied infants were church members visible by the way which made them such in the Christian Church, though they were visible church members according to the way of constitution of the Jewish Church, which was a Commonwealth, of which all that were members were church members. This is the true sum of what past between us in that time Mr. B. speaks of, in which nothing was spoken against my conscience (as he unbrother like charged me,) and such altercation as was, was necessitated on my part by his averseness from explaining his meaning, which I instantly pressed him to, but still he put by with one flirt or another at me, that he might drive me to speak something, which he might represent (as he still did) in the most odious manner he could to the auditors, which injurious way hath been that which hath confirmed his party, though thereby they are abused by him. For present I grant the infants Deut. 29.11. were then visible church members, but not by that Covenant.

Against this Mr. B. in his Correct. sect. 5. saith thus.

Answ. I find Moses speaking of God's Covenant, but not the Covenant speaking, nor is that expression good sense; nor was the speech to any other then were there, though it was of what should be after, and that as well what should be after to them that were present, as to them that were to be after, v. 13. and I think it true, that they which were not could not be members visible, though if the invisible Church be so from election, a • most Protestant Divines say, they might be members invisible. And it is true, that as they had a being so they had membership (visible) not in being but possibility and futuri • ion. But this is no answer to my reason but a strengthening of it. For whereas the the reason was this, That Covenant doth not make actually visible church members, which is made with them who are not actually visible church members: But that Covenant was made with them that were not actually visible church members, for it was made with the unborn, who are confessed not to be actually visible church members by Mr. B. himself; Ergo. The major is plain from the rule in Logic, The same as the same doth always the same. And for Mr. Bs. instances, it is true, that it follows not, the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not; but it follows, the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects, because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born; so in this point, though the arguing be not good, the unborn are not actually visible church members, therefore the born are not; yet this (which was my arguing) was good, By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible church members, therefore by the same Covenant of itself, without any other cause, neither were the born infants actually visible church members; and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visible church members.

To my saying, that an entering into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however (not as Mr. B prints it though) it did in the Jewish, he saith much in the compass of a few lines, all which is answered before in several sections, chiefly 50, 51, 52, 57. But he saith, 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question. To which I say, though it be a question between us, yet it is not all the question. For both in the Dispute, and in all my writings, I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible church members; and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument, he should have proved that visible church membership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct, which Mr. B. failing to do, fails in proving the chief point of his argument. But let's view what he saith, Correct. pag. 251.

Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant, that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestic or political benefits proper to Abraham's seed inheriting, which is set down Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. out of J • r. 31.33. and I say, that though there is perhaps an Evangelical promise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse, yet Deut. 29.13, 14, 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was no • purely Evangelical▪ or essentially a Gospel Covenant, but a political, legal, national Covenant, such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace. And I prove it thus. 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan, the inheritance of it, and prosperity therein, is not essentially a Gospel Covenant, or a pure Gospel Covenant. But so doth that, Deut. 29.13, 14, 15. Ergo. The major is manifest: For the Gospel Covenant doth no • promise those things. The minor is plain from the words [ as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. ] But that was a promise of Canaan, as appears from Gen. 12.7. & 13.15. & 15.8. & 17.8. & 22.17. & 26.3. & 28.13, 14. Deut. 34.5. and many passages in Moses his speech, 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. & 28.11. 2. The Covenant and Oath made then, was the same which was said to them before; Deut. 29.13. But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb, Deut. 29.1. Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace, as is proved before, sect. 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses, that is not a pure Gospel covenant, but a legal, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.12. But such is this, Deut. 29.8, 29. & 30.2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16. where the judicial and • eremonial are meant as well as the moral. 4. That Oath and Cov • nant which had the legal threatenings annexed to it, was not a pure Gospel covenant, or essenti • lly the Covenant of grace, Gal. 3.10. Bu • such was this, as appears from Deut. 29.20, 21, 25. & 30.18, 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position, I omit, 1. Because Mr. B. hath not set down the place. 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produ • ed the chief. To the first, I answer by denying the major, and the proof of it; and aver, that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gospel grace. The minor is true, but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses, as the words Deut. • 9.13. imply, that he may establish thee today for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entered into.

He adds. 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they may live, was a Covenant of grace; (for the Apostle to the Hebrews, ch. • 0.16, 17. so describes it:) But this was such a Covenant, as is written Deut. 30.6. Therefore this was a Covenant of grace.

Answ. Besides the exceptions following, it should be proved, that the promise, Deut. 30.6. was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13, 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasion, to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity.

3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righteousness of faith, was the Covenant of grace: But this is such, as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. with Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. But to this you give two sorry answers, being resolved to say somewhat. 1. [ It is s • oken of the command.] Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing? 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other, to think that God's command is no part of his Covenant? That [he will be their God] is his promise: but is that all the Covenant? That [they shall be his people, and so take him for their God, and resign themselves to him] this is both commanded by him, and covenanted by them.

Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses, Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose, is meant of the word of the law, the commandments, and statu • es which were written in that very book of the law, v. 10. which Moses delivered, and it was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it: Which cannot be meant thus, Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ from above, or who shall descend into the deep, that is to bring Christ again from the dead, that we may hear Christ thus brought down and up, and do it, it were not good sense, nor any way congruous to the speech of Moses. And to Mr. Bs. reply, 1. I say it is not spoken of the promise, for that is not a thing for us to hear and do, but for God. 2. Though the command may be a part of the Covenant in a large sense, as it includes all that pertains to a Covenant, yet in strict and exact sense, a Covenan • being an aggregate of promises, the command is not part of the Covenant. 3. However it is no part of the Covenant and Oath which God sw • re Deut. 29.13. For what God sware was that which he would do, not what he appointed them to do, and consequently no part of the Covenant of grace, for that is of what God will do for us; our faith, though it be the condition of the thing promised, yet i • it not the Covenant o • grace. 4. The word, Deut. 30.14. cannot be meant of the Covenant of grace, since the condition is the hearing and doing of all the law of Moses, that they might keep God's commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, (which reach to judicial, and c • remonial precepts, as well as moral) that thou mayest live and multiply, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land, whither thou goest to possess it. Locus ill indubitante • de obedien • ia totius legis loquitur. David Pareus castig. Bellarm. tom. 4. degrat. & lib. arb. l. 5. c. 6.

2. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. As much is said by the most godly and learned Protestant interpreters of this place as by me, and therefore if I be chargeable with accusing the Apostle of wresting and perverting the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense, they are likewise so chargeable. Beza annot. ad Rom. 10.8. By this term [the word] Moses understandeth the law which God by his voice published, all his people bearing, so that they might pretend no ignorance, when they had the tables of it described, and so might everyone recite it out of their mouth, and might have it within as it were engraven in their knowledge and mind. But what Moses spake of the law, all that Paul accommodates to the Goppel by allusion: that at length by the Gospel he may teach us to enjoy that indeed which the law promiseth, and be f • eed from that which it threateneth. Diodati anno • . on Rom. 10.6. St. Paul maketh use of this passage though spoken in another sense. The new Annot. on Rom. 10.8. • y the word, Deut. 30.14, Moses understood the law which the Lord published with his own voice, and Paul applies it to the preaching of the Gospel, which was the perfection of the Law. On v. 18. This place is taken out of Psal. 19.4. and is properly meant of that knowledge of God, which all men may have by contemplation of the heavens, and the c • eatures therein; yet it is by the Apostle very fitly applied to the sound of the word preached by the Apostles. • rapp on Rom. 10.8. Moses meant it of the Law, but it more fitly agreeth to the Gospel Piscater analys. Paulus alludi • ad verba Mosis, Deut. 30.14. Willet on Rom. 10. qu. 10. Some think that Moses in that place, Deut. 30.12. directly speaketh of the law according to the literal sense; and St Paul by a certain allusion applieth that unto faith, which Moses uttereth of the law. So Theodoret, Chrysostom, Occumenius. Likewise Tostatus upon the place, Paul by a certain agree • ent hath translated this place, and applied it unto faith. Vatablus also saith, that Paul followeth not Moses sense, but some words. Yet Pareus inclineth to think St. Paul here useth but an allusion to that place of Moses, dub. 6. Daniel Heinsius, Exercit. sacr. in Rom 10.6, 7. E Rom. 10.18 patet rerum esse quod non semel alibi •• nuimus, sed & a magnis observatum Theologis, in epistolam praesertim ad Hebraos, meninimus; novi faderis scriptores verba veteris & eleganter & venust non semel alio tran • ferre. Quod tam usitatum est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ut vi • ullus fi • Homeri versus cu • us verba non mutato sensu usurpentur. In his autem quod Matthaeus, c. 2. v. 18. • Jerem. 31.15. ( quod & B. Hieronymus vult) usurpavit, neque pauca sunt in psalmis quae pro instituto suo Paulus maxima cum venustate usurpat. Qu • d nec mirum est, cum utrobique idem spiritus, qui tanquam propria ac sua, ante dicta usurpavit. And yet none of these Authors did conceive Paul to have wrested and perverted the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense ; nor doth my speech infer any such accusation. Nor do I mean that Paul alludeth to the words, making use of the mere phrase without the sense ; but that he accommodates words to his purpose, that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken, from that to which the Apostle applieth them, which is no wresting of them. To the reason of Mr. B. I answer. To the first, that I do not find that the Apostle v. 6. brings it in as God's description of the righteousness of faith, but by a prosopopeia the righteousness of faith is brought in as directing the believer. To the second, it is true Paul addeth the very exposition to every sentence, bu • not an exposition of the Text in Deut. 30.12, 13, 14. but an exposition of the words of the righteousness of faith as they are applied thence by the Apostle to his purpose. And yet plain Texts which are not so accomodated I cannot • o put off as I will.

Your last answer, saith Mr. B. is the worst of all. You say, if the Covenant did contain promises purely Evangelical, yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot be meant of all and every of the Israelites, that God would be a God to them, that is, sanctify, justify, adopt them to be heirs of eternal life. ] Answ. 1. God saith you stand all here, &c. to enter into the Covenant, and oath, &c. And you say, it cannot be all, whom shall we believe God or you?

Answ. Both, for we say in this point the same, that some in the name of all did enter into Covenant, and his oath to be a God in them, and yet he not be a God to them all that entered into the Covenant, but to to them only that kept the Covenant▪

2. Saith he, You foully mis-interpret the promise, to be to them a God, as if it were such as could be verified to none but the elect. God hath p • omised to others to be their God, who are not elect, as is undeniable in the text. Therefore in a larger sense, as I have before in due place fully explained it.

Answ. It is sure foul language to tell me I foully mis interpret the promise • to be to them a God, when I interpret not at all t • e promise Deut. 29.13. but only infer from Mr. • s. interpretation of it as purely Evangelical (which I count false) that then it in respect of promises purely Evangelical should be meant only of the elect, which I agree with him to be absurd. Nor is the matter salved by telling me that God hath promised to others to be their God who are not elect, For however he hath not promised to be a God in respect of promises purely Evangelical to be a God by sanctifying, justifying, adopting to eternal life, to any but the elect. Yet Mr. B. asks me.

And why may not God promise justification, adoption (and sanctification in the sense as Divines, and Scripture most use it, for the work following faith) and eternal life, and all on the condition of faith, and this to more then the elect? and hath he not done so? But of this and of infants condition before

Answ. 1. By sanctifying I meant the sanctifying by which faith is produced, which is the same with regeneration, writing the laws in the heart, Heb. 10.16. and is used so 1 Cor. 1.30. & 6.11, &c. and thus he sanctifieth only the elect, Ephes. 1 4. 2 Thes. 2.13. and I supposed Mr. B. had meant the same by circumcision of the heart, to love the Lord, Deut. 30.6. and that he included it in the promise of being a God to them, Deut. 29.13. and this sure is proper to the elect, if Mr. B. say true, Friendly accommod. p. 362▪ Cor novum is given to the elect only. And sure if Mr. B. did not mean this, he did not mean the Covenant of grace, or the Gospel covenant, in which this is the first promise, Heb. 10.16. 2. But let after-sanctification be only meant, and justification condition of faith, yet I think the promise is made of these to none but the elect, • ith none are believers but they. An offer may be made to others by men, but no promise by which God is bound, and will perform it to any other. 3 If the Covenant be on condition of faith, then it is not made to infants, for they believe not. Nor is the promise made to infants on condition of parents faith, for though Mr. B. dream so, yet the Scripture saith not so, nor is it true. For 1. the promise should then be made to Esau as well as to Jacob in infancy, which the Apostle refutes Rom. 9, 11, 12, 13▪ 2. If the promise were made to infants upon their parents faith, then God is engaged to sanctify them in infancy, and if so he doth it, and if he do, either holiness by sanctification of the spirit may be lost, or else they must all go to heaven, for all holy ones go thither, 3. The promise to the father is upon condition of his own faith, therefore so is the promise to the child, for there is not a different promise to the father and the child upon different conditions. But I hasten.

He adds. You would sain say somewhat too to that Deut. 30.6. but like the rest, 1. You confess it is a promise of spiritual grace, but to the Jews after their captivity, 2. • nd upon condition of obedience, 3. And not performed to all their seed, but only to the elect. ] Answ. 1. But did God promise spiritual grace to the Jews after the captivity and not before?

Repl. The promise Deut. 30.6. is to the Israelites to do it for them only after their captivity, I said not after the captivity as Mr. B. speaks.

Was not the promise, saith he, made to them that then were?

Repl. It was.

Were not they, saith he; captivated oft in the time of the Judges, and so it might at least be made good then?

Repl. I grant it.

If God, saith he would do as much for them before they forsook him, and brake the Covenant by rebellion, as he would do afterward when they repented, then he would circumcise their hearts before as well as after: But the former is true, therefore the later.

Repl. I grant it, yet this proves not the promise as it is there Deut. 30.6. to be made to them of what God would do for them afore their captivity.

2. Saith he, And if it be on condition of obedience, then you confess there are conditional promises, and then it was made to more then the elect.

Answ. I deny the consequence.

3. Saith he, If it were not performed to any but the elect, no wonder, when it was a conditional promise, and the rest performed not the condition: which God will cause the elect to perform.

Answ. Sure it was not promised to any but to whom God performs it. For though it were on a condition of theirs, yet it was such a condition as was to be wrought and was promised by him, which he did only to the elect. And thus Mr. B. may see my vindication or my descant on this text, and the Reader perhaps will wonder at the vanity and willfulness of Mr. Bs. exceptions against it.

SECT. LXVIII. Neither from Rom. 4.11. nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved, ch. 18, 19. part. 1. of Baptism, That Infant Church membership was partly natural, partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith.

CH. 18. Mr. B. writes thus.

Answ It is true Rom. 4.13, 14, 16, 20, 21. there is mention of God's promise to Abraham, and in particular two speeches are cited v. 17. Gen. 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations (which implies a promise) & v. 18. Gen. 5.5. So shall thy seed be, & it is true the privile • ges of justification by faith, of the father of believers, of heir of the world, 〈◊〉 by faith, and the promise but that his visible Churchmemhership 〈◊〉 infants was by promise is not said, nor is there a word in that Chapter or elsewhere, • o prove that Churcmembership of infants was built on grounds of Gospel and not Law, or that it was sealed, or that the seal was durable which was termed the seal of the righteousness of faith, or that the Circumcising of any person besides Abraham was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and therefore I deny the minor, which he terms the antecedent, and the consequence of the major also. For if his reason were good, I might by the same medium thus argue, If that Circumcision by which infants were usually then entered and engaged Church members was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and was not given on legal grounds then that Circumcision of infants is not repealed, But the antecedent is plain in the Text, Ergo. What answer Mr. B. gives to this argument will also answer his own, and I presume he will not hold Circumcision unrepealed, which he must if his argument be good.

Mr. B. adds,

Answ. I am sure Mr. B. in this (as he doth almost in everything I have spoken, written or done, which he hath had occasion to mention) doth mis-report me, my an • wer to him and others was not as he and they represent it. This is my answer, 1. That Rom. 4.11. no other persons Circumcision but Abraham's is termed the seal of the righteousness of faith ▪ 2. That to Abraham his Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness by faith, which he had afore be was circumcised. 3. That Abraham's personal Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith to all that believe as he did, and to no other. 4. That the usu • l Ci • cu • cision of infants, was not a seal of the righteousness of faith, or of the Covenant of grace to every circumcised person.

Answ. 1. If Circumcision were at first ordained of God to seal a Gospel righteousness of faith, then it did not seal visible Church membership of infants (for that is not a Gospel righteousness of faith, since it may be without Gospel righ • eousness or faith, and these may be without it) as Mr. B. saith in this Chapter. 2. The nature, use and end of Circumcision in others, is not at all expressed Rom. 4. •• . but only of Abraham's. 3. The use and end of Circumcision was at first to signify that Covenant God entered into with Abraham, Gen. 17. after to bind the circumcised to observe the law of Moses, as the Apostle conceived it Gal. 5.3.

2. Saith he,

Answ. 1. Doth not Mr. B. of baptism p. 2. ch. 2. himself answer, that baptism, which he terms a Sacrament or holy engaging sign and seal, hath more ends and uses then one, and that the infant is capable of some, though not of others: yea though he make the end to be in the definition of Sacraments that it is of their nature to be signs, and so no Sacraments but what do signify; yet he will have baptism to be a Sacrament to an infant to whom it never is any sign or signifies anything, for the baptized infant either never saw it, or never saw it as a sign of the engagem • nt Mr. B. speaks of, and so it is never a sign to the baptized, the Baptism leaving no visible impression on the body as Circumcision did, to signify to the infant when he comes to age. Whence I infer, 1. That according to Mr. Bs. own doctrine, the Sacrament of Baptism hath one end to those to whom it was first given to wit, to signify their owning of Christ as their Lord, and another end to almost all others, to wit, infants, to seal them God's promise without their personal owning of Christ. 2. That according to him, the nature, end, and use of Sacraments, or holy engaging signs and seals is not the same to all; for Baptism is no holy engaging sign to an infant, who doth neither signify by it, nor hath anything signified to it by it, no nor is naturally capable of it, and consequently it is no Sacrament to it, since it is not either actually or potentially a sign to the infant, no not when grown up of anything signified by it. 2. Doth not Mr. B. acknowledge, that Abraham's Circumcision did seal the righteousness of saith which he had being yet uncircumcised ? sure he will not deny this, which the Apostle expressly teacheth. But sure it had not that end in all others, therefore he must acknowledge one end of Circumcision for Abraham which to all others it had not 3. About the nature, end, and use of Sacraments, I have expressed in part my mind before, sect 31. Nor either there or here do I use any shifts against a manifest truth, but Mr. B. ha • h levied a company of poor feeble arguments, which but for the shallowness or prejudice of Paedobaptists, deserved not an answer.

Ch. 19. he saith thus. My 14 th. arg. is this: If the law of infants church membership were no part of the ceremonial or merely judicial law, nor yet of the law of works, then it is not repealed. But it was no part of the ceremonial law, nor merely judicial, nor part of the law of works (as such.) therefore it is not repealed. The consequence is evident, seeing no other laws are repealed. The antecedent I prove in its parts. 1. None will say it was part of the law of works; for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended: But church membership was a mercy.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all (which he hath not proved yet) distinct from the law of Circumcision; and this is my answer to this argument, that there is no such law at all, and this is enough. Yet I add, 2. If his pre • ended law of infants visible church membership be no part of the law of works, then it is not of the law of nature, which before and after he asserts; for the law and Covenant of nature, is the law and Covenant of works, which I think Mr. B. will not deny, surely it is not of grace in Christ; Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall; but such is the law of nature, Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended, is a dictate of Divines, which needs proof. That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works, is proved before, sect. 43. But that yielded some mercy, Levite. 4.2, 20, 26, 31, 35. Numb. 15.22, 23, 24, 28. Ergo. 4. How far, and in what manner visible church membership of infants was a mercy, and how it is otherwise now, is shown before, sect. 64, 66.

2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law, then 1. let them show what it was a type of, and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it, and prove it to be so, if they can.

Answ. 1. I do not take everything typical to have been ceremonial; nor every ceremonial thing to be typical: Or if it be so, yet I am sure, of everything ceremonial which was typical, Mr. B. cannot show what was the antitype in particular, at least he cannot prove it. When Mr. B. hath shown and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes, bowls, snuffers, and other utensils about the tabernacle, and of every thing appointed concerning them, their color, fashion, metal, &c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses, there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task. But till then it is enough to tell him, that to it with other things typified, Christ, Col. 2.17. succeeded. The church membership by birth hath had church membership by faith to succeed it, as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough, let Mr. B. answer, and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism mere Babism, about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants, pag. 112.113, 114, 115, 116, &c.

2. Saith he, If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony, then the Church itself should be but a ceremony. And so the Church in Abraham • family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah, Melchizedek, Sem, Job, Lot, &c. which were more then ceremonies.

Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial, and yet not the materials, that is the men, a ceremony; so church membership might be a ceremony, yet not the church members. But I do not term either the one or the other a ce • emony, it is sufficient that it was a mere positive thing alterable and that it was altered.

3. Saith he, And that it was no part of the merely judicial law, appears thus. 1. As was last said, then also the Church in Abraham's family should be more vile then the aforesaid▪ for their church membership was not a piece of mere policy, as we call the judicials.

Answ. I • it we • e by any law that infants were Church members, it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the • hree sorts of the Mosaical laws, which Divines do so distinguish. And to the argument I say, 1. By making infants Church membership to be by a mixed or mere judicial law in Abraham's family, it is not made a piece of mere civil policy not Eccl • siastical, for the Jew • Commonwealth was a holy policy, and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently, it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the mere judicial laws, as the constitution of the Sanhed • in and other things are, and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews. 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah, &c. we cannot resolve, since we find little or nothing of them, no mention of Noah's infants, or Melchizedecs, Shem, Jobs, or Lots except Amm • n and Moab, nothing said of their Church membership, or of the government of the families, what it was, or by what law.

2. Saith he, It cannot be shewn that it hath anything of the nature of a mere judicial law in it (except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial, upon which mere judicials are built:) why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Church members as children? yet who dare say that this is merely judicial?

Answ. It can be shewn, that if there be such a law, it is a mere judicial law, because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel, as it is termed, Ephes. 2.12. and the entering of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people, and not by the priests. And this we da • e say of the women's visible Church membership as well as the infants, and that neither of them were by a moral law o • Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies.

3. Sai • h he, It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdom, and the Kings subjects. And Mr. T. hath told me his judgment; that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one: therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds, it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Church members. I think this is past denial.

Answ. Kingdoms themselves are not of the law of nature, no nor of the law of nations, if they were, all other government then of Kings were against these laws, much less can it be o • the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdom, and the Kings subjects. According to my judgment, the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally, but by institution; and therefore, according to my grounds, it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Church members. So that I find none o • these things past denial.

4. Saith he, The promise that took them in, and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of • aith, as is proved before; therefore not a mere judicial.

Answ. Neither were they taken in by a promise, nor was the promise or the seal grounded, that is, made or given by reason of the righteousness of faith, to or in those to whom they were made or given. Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B.

5. Saith he, In • ants were Church members long before the time of Moses, when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth, and the • udicial laws given them. And as the Apostle argues, the law which was many hundred years after, could not make void the promise, and so it could not be that this was part of the merely judicial law.

Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth, and judicial laws given, as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Sh • lah to take their brothers wife, Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah concerning Tamar, v. 24. before Moses time, though then both were completed. Though the law makes not void the promise, yet the law of infants visible Church membership, if there were any such, might be merely judicial.

6. Saith he, That it is neither a mere judicial, nor proper to the Jews▪ appeareth thus. That which was proper to the Jews, was given to them only; that is, only to Isaac and his seed, on whom the Jewish privileges were entailed. But many hundreds were circumcised as Church members (among them many infants) in Abraham's family, before ever Isaac was born; and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in. The children of Keturah and their children, and the children of Ishmael, &c. were once all Church members; let any show when they were unchurched, except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness; or let any show that the same sons of Keturah, who must circumcise their sons as Church members while they were in Abraham's family, must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family. Did God change laws, and revoke such mercies and privileges to the seed of Abraham, merely because of their removing from his house, and change of place? Who dare believe such fancies, without one word of Scripture? Remember therefore, that it is here plainly proved, that infants Church membership was not proper to the Jews.

Answ. That which wa • proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac only and his seed, but common to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's family, or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews : When Ishmael was cast out, and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac, Gen. 25.6. they were not Church members, nor their children, no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed, Ezra 10. & Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit, however it seem to us. Nor is this conceit a fancy, but plain from those Scriptures named and others, which still reckon the Ishmaeli • es, Edomites, Ketureans, and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Israel, as a profane people, and so not Church members. Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Church members, or did it when separated from the Hebrew people. So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved, that infants Church membership was not proper to the Jews, but that it is partly natural, and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith, as he speaks.

SECT. LXIX. Mr. B. ch. 20. by his 15 th. arg. from infants being once members in the universal visible Church, hath not proved their visible Church membership unreapealed.

CH. 20.

Answ. The very conclusion, is so palpably false, that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should show himself so besotted, as to prove so in • ustriously a thing contrary to sense, that the visible Church membership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed, that is, ceaseth. For who knows not that Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, with million • more are dead, and are now no members in any visible Church? If it be said, that Mr. B. means the species of infants, I reply, then he speaks non-sense and false. For the species is but one, and therefore to • erm the species which is but one [ all infants ] in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church, for members are individuals, nor is the universal visible Church totum universal, which may be thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches, but totum integrale, an integral whole consisting of parts existing, and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible, and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased. It is false also that the species an be termed visible: For that is visible which may be discerned by sense, but sense discerneth not species, but individuals. If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body, as a river whi • h con • inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel, neither will this • ee for his purpose. For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease, and other infants succeed; 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people, to wit the Jews, w • o had heretofore infants visible church members, they are broken off from being God's visible Church, and so the succession of church members in t • at people ceaseth, and it is that which is denied t • at in the other channel, to wit the visible Christian Church, infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants, and if the sense be thus, the whole argument is this; If infants visible church membership be and • ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish, then it is not repealed. But infants visible church membership is and ought to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish, ergo. of which I should deny the minor. But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning, whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false. And therefore I answer to his argument, if the parenthesis ( which was never taken down ) be a part of the antecedent in the major, and the sense be this [and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not] and this be supplied in the minor, I d • ny the minor, if it be not supplied I deny the syllogism to be good, as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major, if it be understood in another sense (which I count non-sense) that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian, the minor is to be proved. As for what Mr. B. saith, the universal Church never ceaseth here, if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age (in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members) it is false, if of an universal Church visible indefinite, so as that the sense be, some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth, or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal, but in the definite of one age, and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false; Or if the sense be (as it seemeth by what follows) That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not • here, I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism; And say, That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church, as it is to term humanity or manhood a man, or Peter humanity or the human nature. All know that understand the Metaphysics, that whatever the difference be whether formal or modal or some other, yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other: no man saith the essence of a thing (which is all one with the nature) is the thing, but that by which it is. In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible. For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential, no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church, but of the completeness of it. But let's view Mr. Bs. proof.

1. Saith he,

Answ. I list not to interpose my judgment in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Hudson on the one side, and Mr. Allen, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Hooker on the other side, which rest much on the meaning of the term [Church] in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12, 28. & 10.32. Acts 8. • . Gal. 1.13, &c. and some Logic notions of an universal and integral whole, of a similar and dissimilar whole, the distinction of a Church entitive and organical, and the like. Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing, I shall thus far express my conceits. 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alleged by Mr. Hudson vindic. ch. 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last, 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be only out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it, and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren, though perhaps the effect might extend further. Nor do I think on the other side, that in any one of them by [ the Church ] is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken, which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3. Gal. 1.1 • . For Saul did not make havoc, persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken, nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem, but the word [ Church ] there is taken without quantity, an • so neither notes the universal nor particular, all nor some, but indefinitely in genere confuso, the disciples of Christ, or any of that way, Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ, Acts 22.19. them that called on his name, Acts 9.14. the Saints, Acts 26.10. wheresoever he could reach them. And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47. 1 Cor. 10.32. 1 Tim. 3.15. and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10. whether [by the Church ] be meant of what was done to or on the Church, that is the believers called out of the Gentiles, to whom he gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius, or by the teachers in the Church, especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given. Matth 16.18. It is true, is meant the visible Church, but not the universal organical collectively taken, nor any particular Congregation organized, but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible, against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail, to keep them in, but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day. Nor is it said that the keys should be given to the Church but to Peter, the use of which was to be in the calling of the Church effectually. The other text 1 Cor. 12.28. cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective, nor of a particular Congregation, not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson, nor the former, for the Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, are distinct from the Church there taken: but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective, Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles, &c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum, but in the Church distributively taken, that is, in the several Churches where they were employed, as Peter among those of the Circumcision, Paul among the Gentiles. To which the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . hath set, gives me occasion to incline, which I conceive to b • e the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gave, Eph. 4.12. and it notes not a setting, by way of law constituting such to be in the Church, but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit, as he saw good. 2. I conceive the term Catholic or universal Church (between which Mr. Bl. Coven sealed pag. 155. saith Divines distinguish) is sometimes taken in contradistinction to the Jewish National Church, sometimes as comprehending both the believers before and since the incarnation of Christ, and in both senses I conceive it notes the invisible Church, or the Church of the first born which are written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. who are fellow heirs of the same body and partakers together of the promise of Christ through the Gospel, Ephes. 3.6▪ and this is the Catholic Church in the Apostles Creed, which we believe though we see it not. 3. I acknowledge a Catholic visible Church both before and after Christ's incarnation entitive, though I think not organical since Christ's ascension and the Apostles decease, and that this Catholic visible Church consists of all the visible Church-members and Churches particular visible in all the world and that this is visible only in the several parts, which exist, and because these parts are in flux as a City, Army, Commonwealth, there are sometimes more sometimes fewer, sometimes the same persons may be visible Church-members and sometimes not, some parts may be formed after one manner some after another, the same sort of persons may be (as infants) in a Church v • sible of one constitution and not in another, he may be a member (as Cornelius ) in one Church that is not in another. So that the Church universal visible which I acknowledge is not uniform, and is only as in numbering a total sum of many particulars cast up. 4. I conceive the text Mr. B. alledgeth serveth not his purpose. For though I think it is meant of the Church visible, yet not in respect of all the parts of the Church visible, but those that are so visible as that they are also of the invisible Church, to wit, true believers. 1. Because it is said that th • y are by one spirit baptized into one body, and made to drink into one spirit, now this must be understood of that unity of spirit which unites to Christ, not barely in respect of common gifts to the sanctified and unsanctified. But this cannot be said of all the vi • ble members of the visible Church, therefore it is not meant of them. 2. Because the many members▪ termed one body are termed Christ, v. 12. which can be meant of Christ mystical only, for those that are only Christ by profession are not termed Christ, but those who are spiritually uni • ed to him▪ now those are one spirit, 1 Cor. 6.17. new creatures, 2 Cor. 5.17. to whom there is no condemnation, Rom. 8.1. of his flesh and of his bones, Ephes. 5.30, 31, 32. And to his reasons I answer, that though they prove the body meant 1 Cor 12.13. was visible, yet they prove not that all parts of the visible Church are comprehended in that body, but only such as were also of the invisible.

2. Saith Mr. B. That the Jews infants were members of this universal visible Church, I prove thus: There is but one visible universal Church or body: therefore they must needs be of this one, or be unchurched. See Gal. 3.16. Ephes. 4 4, 1 Cor. 1 • .12.

Answ. The unity there ascribed is not visible but invisible, to wit, by the union of the same spirit, and the body though visible in respect of some parts, yet is not said to be one in resp • ct of any but those who are invisibly also joined to that body, or for their sake, as Mr. B. pag. 340 If Christ Gal. 3.16. be not meant of Christ personal, it is certain it is meant of no more then Christ mystical, or the Church invisible, and so 1 Cor. 12.12. the like is to be said. And that it is so Ephes. 4. • . appears from the words where these are joined one body and one spirit. Therefore I deny that those texts are meant of the universal visible Church as visible, but only of that part of the universal visible Church of that time which was also of the invisible, which is one by unity of the same spirit. As for the universal visible Church it cannot be said to be one in several ages numerically, for it is but the total of all the members then existent (for if they be not existent among the living they are not visible) and they are sometimes the same, sometimes others (he that is now of the visible Church may cease by death or apostasy to be so tomorrow) sometimes more sometime fewer, but they are one in respect of profession of the same faith, or in some other visible appearance to be of God's people. Now the infants of the Jews might be members of the visible Church universal of a former age, but were not of the universal visible Church of that age, which was not one numerically with the universal visible Church of a former age, nor meant to be so, 1 Cor. 12.13.

2. Saith he, Everyone that is a mamber of the particular, must needs be a member of the universal; else one might be a part of the part, and yet not a part of the whole.

Answ. It is true of the universal made up of those parts, but he may be a member of the particular Church of uncircumcised, as Cornelius, who is not a member of the particular Church of the circumcised; and he may be a member of the universal visible of one time, who is not a member of the universal visible of another time. A Jew before the offer of Christ might be a member of the Jewish Church national, as the Pharisees, to whom John the Baptist, Ch • ist, and his Apostles preached; yet were not members of the universal Church visible when they rejected the offer of Christ. Infants were members of the visible universal Jewish Church, who were not so of the universal visible Christian in another • ge. Mr. Bs mistake is I conceive in this, that he thinks the universal visible Church is one and the same in every age, which is a gross mistake.

But he saith, This is all beyond dispute; and Mr. T. denied none of it, when I urged it on him, he confesseth, 1. There is a universal Church visible. 2. That the Jews Church was not the whole universal. 3. That everyone that is a member of a particular Church, is also a member of the universal. 4. And that the Jews infants were members of the universal. 5. And this universal Church is not dissolved.

Answ. I have made some search whether ever I confessed that this universal Church visible of which the Jews infants were members is not dissolved, and do not remember or find that ever I did so; if I sholud, I do revoke it, as being most false: and I rather think (if I did yield anything that seemed like it) that what I confessed was, that the nature or essentials of the Church are not dissolved, instead of which (as I ghess by what follows) Mr. B. put this as my confession. He adds.

What then remains to be denied? Why this is all that he saith to the whole [that their membership in the universal Church was only by reason of their membership in the particular; and therefore ceased with it.] And how is this proved? Why Mr. T. saith it is so, and that is the best proof, and all that I could get.

Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so, it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it: But I did then think, and do still think it so plain, that it needed not proof; and (as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is) I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith, that everyone that is a member of a part is a member of the whole, and that the individual Church that then was, was broken off for unbelief ; and I know no visible Church but an individual. Methinks it is all one as if I had said, the finger is only a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand, and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body, the finger ceaseth to be a member. But yet M. B. will try whether he can disprove this any better.

1. Saith he, I think I have sufficiently proved, that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, but only the accidental ceremonies; and the individual Church that then was, is broken off for unbelief; but the Olive still remained.

Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish, which if broken off, though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, and the Olive still remained, yet the infant Church membership which came only in with the Jewish national Church, might and did cease.

2. Saith he. If the Jews Church were repealed, yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church, must prove it well: For if I find that they were once in it, I need no more proof that they remain in, till someone show me where it is revoked, which is not yet done by any that I know of.

Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church, and of the Jews Church (which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal) is a piece of Baxterian non-sense, which I use not. That the Jewish Church national is broken off, and that church membership by birth is altered into church membership by faith, is so fully proved before, sect. 50, 51, 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me, that I count it superfluous to add anymore. If it satisfy not Mr. B. it's to be ascribed to his pertinency in his opinion, which to be his proper temper I was told long ago, and much experience of him by myself and others find to be true.

3. Saith he, The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular, and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher privilege then our standing or membership in any particular: Therefore it will not follow, that infants lose the greater, because they lose the lesser; and that they are cast out of the universal, because they are cast out of the particular.

Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively, because the universal comprehend the most excellent part, and the rest also; but not intensively, since all the excellency may be from one part. Christ the head is not the universal body, and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ, that is, hath not more perfection then Christ; for all the excellency in all the members is Christ's, and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher privilege then in the particular Church; yea, if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular, yet the standing in the particular is a higher privilege. Else why do Ministers exhort men to join with some particular Church, and to submit to their Pastors? is it not for their advantage? Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers, and those that are separ • tists from a particular Church, and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large, and are so members of the universal Church, should not think they have a higher privilege then members of a particular Church. If he do, he doth wrong them in condemning them, and dissuading them from that state which is a higher privilege. Much less is it true concerning infants, who are not visible Church members, but as they stand in the particular Church. For they are not by their own profession visible Church members, but merely in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people, as God did the Hebrew nation, and no other before nor since. This is clear, if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant, this male infant would be no visible Church member, there being nothing by which he is discernible to sense to be more one of God's people then another infant, though there we • e many Churches of Gentiles • n other places: Whereas on the other side, if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church, but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers, remote from any particular Churches, I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal, though of no particular. Whence it follows, that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish, they lose their standing in the universal.

4. Saith he, Persons are first (in order of nature, or time, or both,) members of the universal Church, before they are members of any particular▪ So was Noah, Lo • , Abraham, and all men before Christ, and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church, and not into any particular. It is so with all others: It is the general use and nature of Baptism; they are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and so into the catholic Church; but not into any particular Church: If any such thing be, it is secondary, and accidental and additional, and no proper end of Baptism. So that it being first in order, that we are entered into the visible universal Church, it is likely to be of more durable continuance.

Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism, and about the priority in order, or time, or both, according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular, I do agree, that persons who were visible Church members by their sensible profession of the true God, were members of the universal afore they were of the particular: But deny this concerning infants, for the reason before given.

5. Saith he, It is no good consequence that is fetched from the removal of a particular Church, or of the Jews particular Church, to breaking off from the universal; therefore this will not prove infants are broke off. If a Jew had been forced into a strange country, yet there, both he and his children had been Church members of the universal Church. When all the Jews were scattered abroad in captivity, so that they had neither temple, nor altar, nor priest, but perhaps one live in one Town, and another in another, as they do at this day; you could not say, that these were of the visible particular Church of the Jews, though you might say still that they were Abraham's seed, and they and their children were members of the visible universal Church.

Answ. The consequence is good as I frame it, Their church membership visible ceaseth, who were visible Church members only in that they were part of that visible Church which now ceaseth; But so it was concerning infants visible church membership, ergo, it ceaseth: Which is different from that which Mr. B. imposeth on me. To his suppositions I say, that they were in that case members of the visible particular Church of the Jews, which was a particular Church, and so accounted even in their captivity, though not in a flourishing estate as in their own country. And for the instance of Keturahs children when they left the Church of Abraham's family, if their infants were visible Church members (which I conceive they were not) then it was because they joined themselves as proselytes to the Hebrew people, which I think is not true, and therefore conceive if any of Keturahs children who left the Church of Abraham's family, professed the God of Abraham, they were members of the universal, but not their infants. And • or what Mr. B. adds, • f a Jew then, or a Christian now, were cast upon the coasts of America, where he should never be a member of a particular Church more, yet he should be a member of the universal still ; I grant it, while they profess God in Christ. And for what he adds, Neither Joseph, Mary, nor Jesus in his infancy were unchurched, because they lived in Egypt (though I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Church member property; but I pass by that ) I grant it, for they remained members of the Jewish Church then when they were in Egypt ▪ as I presume Mr. B. counts those of his Church of Kidderminster members still, who may by imprisonment, traffic, service of the State in war, sickness, or other ways be absent thence in England, or foreign parts against their will.

6. Saith he,

Answ. The consequence is good as I framed it in the paragraph next before, yea though Mr. Bs. two propositions here be granted: Nor can Mr. B. overthrow it, •• ll he prove that the Jews infants had a standing in the universal visible Church, severed from their standing in the Jewish particular, for which he hath yet brought no proof. His saying that he spake of the whole species, not of individual infants, makes his speeches to appear ridiculous non-sense. For the whole species hath no standing in the visible Church universal or particular, nor can be said to be admitted in, or cast out, or removed from one or every particular Church. These things cannot be said of a species, but of individuals, since a species is conceived abstractively from all individuificating circumstances of time, place, &c. which must be conceived in visible Church membership and removal or casting out. And that we are baptized now into that universal visible Church in which infants were members, is utterly false, and that the Church constitution is altered in that the Jewish particular Church ceaseth i • proved before, therefore there is not • ing in this argument unanswerable. As for what Mr. B. adds to this Chapter p. 339. I find not that • e brings anymore strength in it which needs further answer. He refers me to Mr. Hudson's vindic. but tells me not what part he would have me answer, perhaps there is not anything in the book that opposeth me besides what is already answered, and I am not yet so obsequious to Mr. B. as to go ov • r a whole book to find an adversary to fight with; if Mr. B. kn • w any strength in it to oppose me with, he should have himself produced it or referred me to the particular place where I might find it. As for the texts which he cites out of Mr. Hudson, an answer is fu • lie made to what he brings them for in the 2d. pa • t of this Rev • ew, • ect 9. in which Mr. B. and others may see how shamefully they abuse Scripture, to prove a church national comprehending infants like the Jewish in the time of the Go • pel. And I add, that if Mr. B. weigh Mr. Hudson's words in his vindic. ch. 4 sect. 5. p. 93, 94. I acknowledge the Jews to be a national Church. But my description of the Church Catholic was of the Church as it is now, s • nce the partitition wall is broken down, f • r then it became Catholic. I conceive there were believers of the sons of Keturah that d • d not partake of all the privileges of the Jewish Church except they became proselytes. It is the Evangelical Catholic Church which my question is about; into which the Jews themselves being converted were admitted by a new initial seal, viz. baptism, and did not stand in it by their former national membership, but received a Catholic membership by baptism, I conceive that a man of any nation, converted to be a visible believer is a member of the Church Catholic en • itive, and hereby hath right to all Church privileges that belong to the whole Church, God's method us • d in the national Church of the Jews, b • ing in populo Israelitico, m • st • eeds differ from the method in populo Catholico; he will find that learned man speaking as much for my purpose as his own. They tha • boldly affirm that Christ's Covenant, his sati • faction, his Church, his sealing, extend to anymore then elect, join with the Arminians against the Scripture and the most approved Protestants, and the contrary contains no desperate expressions, as Mr. B b • ing m • slay • speaks▪ Mr. Hudson's words pag. 220. are not right. If any hold that the believing Jews children are still Church members, and yet deny that the Gentiles children are so he may hold it still notwithstanding the assault made by Mr. B. here. For by the taking down the partition wall, Ephes. 2.14. and the removing the enmity v. 16. Jews and Gentiles are not made one visible Church after the Jewish frame, but one by faith, and by it the Gentiles are cl • ansed, A •• s 15.9. not a whole nation parents and children as the Jewish Church, but believers repenting, Acts 11.17, 18. one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, &c. Eph. 4.5 6. proves not the Gentile and Jewish Church visible to be the same, but the invisible of both. Gal. 6.15. hath not a word tending to prove that there is the same reason of Jews and Gentiles infant visible church membership, but of the equal interest in Christ of Gentiles who are new c • eatures, as of the Jews. It is no part of Paul's Epistles, and therefore not much of their substance to prove the taking in of the Gentiles, and grafting them into the Olive which the Jews were of, if by it were meant the visible Church Jewish, but it is most palpably false. The discipling nations, the Kingdoms of the world becoming Christ's, Rev. 11.15. prove not infant • discipleship, or church membership. All hitherto brought by Mr. B. hath yielded no sufficient proof, let's view the rest.

SECT. LXX. Mr. Bs. 16th, and 17th. arg from the promise of mercy, Exod. 20.6. and of blessing, Psal. 37.26. are answered.

CH. 21. saith Mr. B.

Answ. There is need of proof of more then the antecedent to make this argument good. For 1. the conclusion is not that which Mr. B. should prove, Church membership and visible Church membership, children and infant children being not all one. God may show the mercy of Church membership to infants, and yet not make over to them visible Church membership, and he may make over visible Church membership to the children of them that love him, and yet not to them in infancy. So that the conclusion may be granted as it stands, without any impeachment to my tenet. But if it be meant of visible Church membership of infant children, the minor is to be denied. And to the proof, 1. I except that this promise was proper to the Jews made to back the legal Covenant, and though it be a promise annexed to the observing a moral precept, yet as in the fifth Commandment termed the first Commandment with promise, Ephes. 6.2. So in this, the promise hath special reference to their prosperous and safe estate in Canaan, in which they were continued while they kept themselves from idolatry, and on the other side expelled, captivated, enslaved, when they served idols, unto the third and fourth generation, upon which considering the time of making this promise, the usual tenor of promises in the Books of Moses, as Deut. 7.9, 12. to the same purpose, the place where this promise is put, the event which doth best expound it, and that nowhere under the Gospel promises are made to believers children, but only to believers themselves of Evangelical mercy, yea the Apostle concludes that notwithstanding the promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7. and to Israel, yet God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, Rom. 9.18. I do determine (without fear of Mr. Bs. censure) that this promise was suited to the Jews peculiarly. 2. I hence infer that if this mercy be meant of Church membership, yet it might be, yea was proper to the Jews children. 3. The mercy here cannot be proved to be visible Church membership. 4. That it is only to those men's children who love him and keep his Commandments, which is an invisible thing, and so whose infants are visible Church members by this promise cannot be known. 5. That this promise is made good though it be not performed to all those that love him, nor to all their children, nor to any in infancy. 6. That this promise is not true without the exception of election, and the expounding of it as conditional and not absolute since it must then follow that God exempts none yet from mercy, there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day▪ So that till Mr. B. have proved the contrary to these (which he can never do) his proof from hence will appear to be of no force. But let us examine what he saith.

Answ. 1 Mr. B. leave • out in the minor the term [ all ] which was in the major of the first syllogism: which if it had been put in the minor (as it was necessary he should do to prove the conclusion he should prove) it would not have been proved out of the text; which doth not assure mercy to all the children of all that love him, but to thousan • s, that is, multitudes of the • ; and to those mercy is not assured absolutely without condition of their love of God, nor is mercy in the text promised perpetually, but as Andr. Rivet. on Exod. 20.6. God doth not so extend the bounds of his mercy, that he may not also deny it to the posterity of some godly men. For these things are said of those things which for the most part happen, God's liberty being always reserved in his judgments and the distribution of good things. So we read the sons of Godly parents to have been forsaken of God and grievously punished. 2. The consequence of his major is denied, and to his dictates (for proof he brings none but his own sayings) I answer first, by denying that all those must be taken for visible Church members on whom God hath stated or assured his mercy by promise, Exod. 20.6. no not though it were stated as Mr. B. would have it, no promise, no not of sanctifying grace making of itself a person a visible Church member, as I have shown often before. 2. I deny that the mercy, Exod. 20 6. is stated as Mr. B. imagines; but say, 1. That the mercy there meant, is stated on the Israelites specially. 2. That it is not meant of spiritual but outward mercies, not now promised to the most holy Saint on earth. 3. That it was declared on a particular ground of God's peculiar respect to Israel, whom he brought out of Egppt. 4. That it is limited to a certain time, while they continued to be his people, which was not to be perpetually. 3. I deny that the words, Exod. 20.6. Deut. 5.10. do expressly contain a promise, but only a declaration of God's frequent dealing, which I confess, doth imply a promise, as his declaration, Exod. • .5. Deut. 5.9. doth imply a threatening; yet I think it not fit to call it a promise, since the Apostle Ephes. 6.2. terms the fifth commandment, the first commandment with promise. But Mr. B. adds.

Now that it is the privilege of the Church only to have God thus engaged to be merciful to them, (and that in a way of distinction from others, as it is in this commandment promise,) is to me a truth beyond dispute▪ And if any do doubt of it, I argue with them thus. 1. If no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men out of the Church can be shewn in the Scripture, then we must take it as proved that there is none: But no such promise can be shewn estating such mercy on any others; therefore, &c. They that can show any such promise, let them produce it.

Answ. The assertion is not a truth beyond dispute, but may be questioned, nor is the consequence good, there being no such declaration of God that he hath made no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men but what can be shewn in the Scripture; and if it were, yet till Mr. B. hath shown that the mercy Exod 20.6. is greater then God vouchsafes to persons out of the Church visible, it may be held (notwithstanding anything Mr. B, produceth) that such mercy is promised to persons out of the Church. However, it is most false that God hath assured his mercy on no other society then the Church. If the promise, Gen. 3.15. be understood of all mankind as meant by the woman's seed (as he before in his third Letter to me, and after here, ch. 23. expounds it) then there is a promise of mercy stated on oath • s then the Church; and the same may be said of Gen. 9.12, 15, 16. besides what is implied in the speeches, Psal. 36.6. Psal▪ 145.9. 1 Tim. 4.10. Till Mr. B. show a greater mercy is stated on the children of all that love God then is on Cyrus, Isa. 45.1, &c. there is a promise shewn in Scripture of such mercy to one out of the Church. The like to Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 27.6. And the promises of calling the Gentiles, of re-engraffing the Jews, Rom. 11.26, 27. are promises to persons out of the Church, and yet of mercy, yea the chiefest mercy; and therefore Mr. Bs. dictates are but vain. Yet he goes on thus.

2. Briefly consider to the contrary : 1. Those without the Church are said to be without hope, without God, strangers to the Covenant of promises, Ephes. 2.12.

Answ. It is said of the Ephesians, that they were once without hope, &c. and it is said also that they were Gentiles uncircumcised; but it doth noth not follow therefore that all Gentiles uncircumcised were without Christ not having hope, without God in the world: Nor doth it follow, that all Gentiles were out of any visible Church who were uncircumcised; nor doth it follow, they had no promises of mercy who were strangers from the Covenants of promise there meant. It is true, this Text proves that the estate of the Gentiles afore the Gospel was preached to them, was as Paul describes it: Yet this neither proves that there were none who were out of the Commonwealth of Israel, and were strangers from the Covenants of promises made to Israel, had no mercy assured to them equal to that, Exod. • 0.6.

2. Saith Mr. B. The promises are all Yea and Amen in Christ, 1 Cor. 1.20. And Christ is the head over all (indeed but only) to the Church, Ephes. 1.22. To his called he giveth the precious promises, 2 Pet. 1.4.

Answ. The promises, 2 Cor. 1.20. are such as were in Christ, and must be understood of saving promises, which are not made to the visible Church as visible, much less to the children of visible church members as such, but only to those that are of the invisible, and therefore this Text proves not that no mercy such as is meant, Exod. 20.6. is assured to any society or persons but those of the visible Church. The same also may be said of 2 Pet. 1.4. where the promises are given to the effectually called, and that by them they are partakers of the Divine nature. And for the other Text, though there be no mention of promises in it at all, yet if any be implied, the speech is meant only of the Church of God's elect (not the mere visible Church) which alone is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all ; and therefore if these Texts prove no mercy promised but to the Church, they prove no mercy promised but to the invisible Church, which is contrary to Mr. Bs. purpose here.

3. Saith he, By faith it is that promises were obtained, Heb. 11.33▪

Answ. It is said, by faith they subdued Kingdoms, in the same v. and therefore after the rate of Mr. Bs. reasoning, none should subdue Kingdoms but the Church. The faith there is such a faith as the just lived by, ch. 10.38. therefore if Mr. Bs. arguing be good, promises of mercy should be made to none, but those who believe with such a faith, and consequently it is not the mere visible Church but the invisible only to whom such mercy is assured. The answer is by denying the consequence, that because promises were obtained by faith, therefore mercy is not assured to any by promise but the Church.

4. He adds. To Abraham and his seed were the promises made, Gal. 3.16. both common and special: The children of the promise are accounted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. Therefore if those without the Church were children of the promise, then they should be the seed. The promise is sure to all the seed, Rom. 4.16. The promise is to you and your children, and as many as the Lord shall call, Acts 2.39. The seed are heirs of the promise.

Answ. Mr. Bs. needlesness still appears. He should prove, that such mercy as he conceives promised Exod. 20.6. (which he will not avouch to be saving mercy) is assured to none but the Church, and he means the visible Church: but here he brings promises of saving mercy, which he dare not say to be made to the children of all that love him, Exod. 20.6. and are indeed made only to those who are of the invisible Church, and therefore impertinently alleged, The promises, Gal. 3.16. are such as are made to Christ either personal for his body mystical, or to Christ mystical, and the promises are those by which is the inheritance, v. 18. righteousness by faith, v. 21, 22▪ which can be true only of the elect, and so that, v. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. So Rom. 4.16. is meant only of true believers, and Rom. 9.8. of the elect only. Now it's not denied, that the promises of righteousness and life belong only to the Church invisible; but these promises are far different from the promise to the children of them that love God, Exod. 20.6. which Mr. B. will have only meant of the visible Church, and of things much below saving benefits. The Text, Acts 2.39. it as impertinently alleged, as hath been proved at large before, the promise there being not meant of any visible privilege, nor the fathers there considered as believers, or lovers of God, but as crucifiers of Christ, and the promise not said to be to any of either sort, but those who were called by God.

5. Saith Mr. B. The Church is the house and family of God, and the promises are his treasure, and Christ's legacies, and the word of promise is his Testament; therefore not for these without. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the word is the truth. In the midst of the Church are God's praises, Heb. 2.12. therefore in the Church are his mercies and promises. It is by the Church that the man • fold wisdom of God is known, Eph. 3.1 • . The Church only is that body whereof the Lord of the promises is head, Col. 1.18.

Answ. The promises of saving benefits are God's treasure, and belong only to the invisible Church; but it follows not therefore that God makes no promise, or the mercy Exod. 20.6. belongs to none out of the visible Church. Let it be yielded, the Church is the pillar of truth, and the word is the truth; yet that God makes no promises to Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, and others out of the Church, or that his promise to them is not true, or that he vouchsafes no mercy to them, follows not. God is praised in the Church, and his counsel made known, and Christ the head of the Church only, and yet all praise, promise, and mercy not appropriate to the Church.

6. Yet again. They that are not in covenant, are not under the promises of this mercy, or have not this mercy stated on them by promise: But those that are without the Church are not in covenant. This argument is past contradiction. No man dare say but these are covenant mercies in this promise mentioned. Wicked men in the Church are within the covenant, as I have proved in the Appendix of my Aphorisms; but those without are not in covenant, though they may have some conditional promises offered. The covenant and such promises as those go together: Therefore it is called the covenant of promises, Eph. 2.12. Rom. 9.1, 2. So is mercy only assured by the covenant ▪ Deut. 7.9, 12. and that to the Church only, 1 Kings 8.23. Neh. 1.5. & 9.32. Mic. 7.20. Luke 1.50, 72. 1 Pet. 2.10. Many more Scriptures show the conjunction between God's mercy and covenant; and most certainly they are all out of covenant that are out of the visible Church.

Answ. If Paedobaptists had not a mind to mock rather then to teach people by their writings, me thinks being so often called upon to speak distinctly what covenant they mean, when they say infants and visible church members are in covenant, and in what manner they are in covenant by God's act, their own, or the baptizers, they would still when they speak of being in covenant clear their meaning. There are divers Covenants of God; that with Noah, Gen. 9. that with Abraham, Gen. 17. that with the Jews, Exod. 19. the new Covenant, Heb. 8.9, 10, 11, 12. Being in Covenant must needs come from their own act of covenanting, and then the sense is, Wicked men in the Church are within the Covenant, that is, they promise to God: But in this sense no infant is in Covenant with God; fo • no infant promiseth to God. Or being in Covenant is from God's act of promising, and thus it is most certainly false that they are all out of Covenant that are out of the visible Church : For all men and beasts are in the Covenant with Noah, Gen. 9.11, 12. Mr. B. himself saith thus in his Appendix to his Aphorisms, answ to the 8 th. object. p. 48. There is a Covenant betwixt God and every living creature. If I sho • ld instance in all the promises made to Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, &c. it would be tedious. The Jews not yet re-engraffed, nor of the visible Church, are certainly in Covenant in this sense, Rom. 11.26, 27. Isaac, Jacob, afore they were born were in Covenant, and so all elect infants in their mothers womb, and men of years yet in infidelity a • e within the Covenant of Evangelical grace, even the new Covenant, Heb. 8. though not in the visible Church. The minor therefore of Mr. Bs. argument is so far from being p • st contradiction, that it is in my apprehension manifestly false. I grant all mercies mentioned in any promise are Covenant mercies ; but for the mercy, Exod. 20.6. it seems Mr. B cannot tell what it is, though he tell us on his word it is more then corporal, if not special. Now he saith, Appendix, p. • 8▪ 1 Sam. 10.4, 5, 6, 7. The spirit of God and other f • vours are promised to Saul. And sure as much is promised to Cyrus, Isa. 44 28. & 45.1, &c. as was to Saul. Wicked men in the visible Church, continuing so to the end, neither are, nor ever were in the Covenant of Evangelical grace, or new Covenant, though they have been in the Covenants with Noah, and some other Covenants, in some of which also wicked men without the visible Church have been. The Covenants of promise (not as Mr. B. reads it, the Covenant of promises, Ephes. 2.12.) were as it is most likely the Covenants Gen. 17. Exod. 19. and the meaning of the Apostle in saying the Ephesians were strangers from them, seems to be, that they were not acquainted with them, and therefore in appearance further from God, as in like manner their uncircumcision and alienation from the policy of Israel, are alleged to the same purpose. And yet when they were made believers, and were in the visible Ch • rch, they were in neither Covenant as there is meant, I mean, they were not in the Covenant made to Abraham, Gen. 17. as it did contain special promises made to his natural seed, nor in the Covenant made at Horeb anymore then they were circumcised or in the policy of Israel. Rom. 9.1, 2. hath nothing of Covenants or promises, but what is v. 4. is often before shown to be meant of the Covenants and promises peculiar to the Israelites; and therefore, though the Covenant and such promises go together, yet therein is nothing which pertains to the visible church membership of our children, those who are now in the Church being not in those Covenants which were peculiar to the Israelites. 'It is true the mercy meant Deut. 7.9. was assured by Covenant, but that Covenant was v. 12. it which God sware to the fathers, which so far as it was Evangelical, belongs only to the elect whether of Jews or Gentiles, so far as political to the Hebrews only. The same I say of 1 Kings 8.23. Nehem. 1.5. & 9.32. Mic. 7. • 0. The texts Luk. 1.50.72. 1 Pet. 2.10. are plainly meant of saving mercy, and of the elect or invisible Church only. So that though I grant a conjunction between God's mercy and Covenant, and that saving mercy is assured only by the Covenant to the Church invisible only, yet I deny that God is in Covenant with none but those of the visible Church, that God hath not promised such mercy as is meant Exod. 20.6. to any but in the visible Church, that what continuance of mercy is assured Exod. 20.6. to posterity is assured to believers children now as it was to the Israelites, that they are all visible Church members to whom that mercy is assured, and therefore infer that the pretended ordinance of infants visible Church membership hath no footing in that text.

Mr. B takes up • n him to answer some objections, but very lamely. If any ob • ect, saith he, that this promise is to the children of them only that love him and keep his Commandments; and we know not who those be; I answer, it is true, but though God make the promise only to such, yet quoad nos, it belongeth to others; that is, we are bound to deal with all those that profess love and obedience by a serious probable profession, as if they were truly what they profess: This I shall prove afterwards. He that hath the face to say that God estateth here his mercy on the children of those that love, and obey him, and yet taketh them not for so much as members of the visible Church, hath too hard a forehead for me to dis • ute it with any further.

Answ. Though we are to take such professors by a judgment of charity to have such love, and title to the promise, and are to exhibit all such offices of love as we are bound to by such a love as is due to them that truly love God, yet we are not bound to take them for visible church members by that judgment of charity, but by a judgment of certainty sensibly perceiving their profession; nor are we to take their children as visible Church members no not by Paedobaptists own grounds, for they are not so but upon their parents real love, they being not visible Church members but by the Covenant which belongs not to them except they do truly love God, and not in show only, which is to be known by a judgment of certainty not of charity only, and that being not attainable it is not by Mr. Bs. own grounds knowable that any infant is a visible Church member. What he saith he shall prove afterwards hath been examined already in the first part of this Review sect. 35. I am not moved by Mr. Bs. censure, but take it for a speech of a man who loves to talk confidently when he disputes weakly, like those who set out weak members with much bumbast.

He adds. Some may object, 1. That they know not what mercy it is that is here promised, whether common or special: To which I answer: what if they know not? yet it is mercy▪ and more then corporal if not special; what if God promise only in general to be to them a merciful God? sure it affordeth us ground of confidence and comfort: As it would do to a poor man to have a Prince promise to be merciful to him and his children.

Answ. That the mercy Exod. 20.6. is more then corporal, if not special is • aid, but not proved by Mr. B. that he dare so confidently assert infants visible Church membership from a promise of mercy which he cannot certainly resolve of what mercy it is, shows he hath a bo • d face not fit for a man that seeks for truth. Especially if it be considered that no promise of itself doth make a man actually a visible Church member, no not of faith or profession, or visible Church membership. For a promise assures a futurity, put's not a thing in present being. 'It is true a promise gives ground of confidence and comfort, that the thing shall be in its due time which is promised, but a promise of any mercy in general cannot assure the futurity of visible Church membership, no not though it were of more then corporal or special mercy, and therefore this argument his own words do sufficiently evince to be only added to make a number without strength.

2. Saith he,

Answ. To interpret a thousand generations or the third and fourth by one only, is such a piece of Arithmetic as I should conceive none but an Ideot or natural fool would use. The imagined contradiction is easily avoided by conceiving, that it is not a plain promise or threat of what God will constantly do, but a declaration of what he doth often, or in some cases; which exposition is confirmed from hence, in that we see so much variation in God's dealings, as necessitates us so to limit it. Though Josiah were a godly Prince, yet God would not show mercy to his sons, and though Manasseh repented, yet for his sins wrath fell on his posterity and the whole people. But let Mr. Bs. interpretation, or mine▪ or any others be righter, yet the speech must needs have such limitations as will disable it from yielding a certain rule, whereby the children of all visible professors visible Church membership may be proved, and therefore it is frivolously alleged by Mr. B. to that end.

2. Saith he,

Answ. We must not reject that which may be understood, nor must we wrest the Scripture to infer from it that which cannot be inferred, but omit the allegation of doubtful texts, and urge that which is certain. That which he conceives undoubted is I conceive uncertain, That God estateth his mercy on the immediate off spring of his people. The instance of Josiah • s children is sufficient to sh • w it not to be universally true. That which he acknowledgeth doubtful is enough to show, that nothing can be from this text certainly inferd for Mr. Bs. purpose, and therefore in the close of this Chapter Mr. B. confesseth that which is sucifficient to show, that the visible Church membership of all infants of godly parents much less of mere professors, cannot be gathered from Exod. 20.6. I pass on to the next.

Ch. 22. he saith thus.

Answ. 1. That the speech Psal. 37.26. compared with v. 25. seems rather to be a narration of what the Psalmist found by experience, then a promise of God. Nevertheless since there are promises to like purpose elsewhere, as Psal. 112.2. Prov. 20.7. I will not deny the speech Psal. 27.36▪ to imply a promise, nor will I say God hath revoked (or as Mr. Bs. language is) repealed it. 2. Nor will I say that this promise was proper to the Jews, though I conceive that the promises to posterity have more reference to the Israelites then other people by virtue of the national and legal Covenants made to that people, and I think Mr. Bs. reason of no force, that it is not made to the Jews only, because it is written in the book of the Psalms ; for promises proper to them are there, as Psal. 89.4, 21, &c. Psal. 132.11, &c. 3. I deny not promises to one particular person may be safely applied oft times to others. 4. I deny that when Psal. 37.26. it is said his seed is blessed, and Psal. 112.2. the generati • n of the righteous shall be blessed, this must be understood of everyone of their seed, or at all times, as in their infancy, the speech being true only of that which happens often, though not always. Mr. B. himself, p. 149. saith, Even as when he saith [the seed of the righteous are blessed] he doth not tie himself to make everyone blessed with his special blessing, though he do it ordinarily. And therefore it is most frivolously alleged to prove an ordinance of every infants visible church membership unrepealed, though the parent be no righteous person, but a visible professor, and very vicious, even an enemy to godliness. 5. There's not a word that intimates any society here pronounced blessed, much less the society of the Church. Nor doth the term [ blessed ] prove it must be meant of the Church. For others then the Church and church members are sometimes blessed, as Psal. 137.9. Psal. 144 15. Mr. B. here ch. 24. They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed, Psal. 137.9. Luke 23.29. 6. Mr. B. himself tells us, p. 330. That he affirms only a certa • nty of church membership, and a strong probability of the justification of the infants of the righteous. But if we urge the word strictly, they only are blessed whose sins are forgiven, Psal. 32.1. Rom. 4.6, 7. and therefore this Text may as soon prove justification of every righteous man's seed (which Mr. B. asserts not) as visible church membership. Yea, nowhere is any termed blessed by reason of his visible church membership, but many times for their outward prosperity, as Psal. 144.15. Deut. 28.2, &c. Gen. 17.20. & 27.38, 39. And that in this respect the blessing is meant, Psal. 37.26. may be gathered 1. from the constant tenor of the promises made to the righteous and their seed, which either are altogether or for the most part in blessings of this life, and accordingly the performance: 2. Because in the New Testament in which spiritual blessings are assured, there i • no promise of them to a believer and his seed, but to believers only: 3. The occasion and series of the Text, Psal. 37.25, 26. leads plainly to this sense, that the righteous is not so forsaken, nor his seed, as to be destitute of bread, that though he be merciful and lendeth, yet his seed is blessed with sufficient provision of outward things: 4. The Texts, Psal. 112.2. Psal. 128.1, 2, 3, 4. Psal. 144.15. lead us to this sense. From all which I answer by denying the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. argument, and to his proof say, that it is no absurdity to pronounce persons blessed, and yet •• ne of God's visible Church.

SECT. LXXI. Mr. Bs. 18 th. arg. from the priority of infants church membership before Circumcision. His 19 th. from God's proneness to mercy: His 20 th. from blessing and cursing, Deut. 28. are answered.

MR. B. proceeds thus, ch. 23.

Ans. So far as I can discern by my memory and such notes I have of the Dispute, this was my concession, That if Mr. B. would prove admission of infants as church members before Circumcision, I should yield to what he averred, that the law and ordinance of infants as visible church members was not repealed▪ Yet I confess, by reason of Mr. Bs. quickness of speech, his unheeded altering terms, using often [visible church members] for [admission as visible church members] which in that time in the conflict of Dispute I did not always take notice of, or through weariness mention, it not to be unlikely I did say as Mr. B. saith I did. However by my writings it app • ars this is and was my constant judgment, that infants were visible members of no Church but that of the Hebrews, nor such till by God's call of Abraham and his house they were taken to be his separated people; and that infants were not admitted visible churchmenbers, nor any law of admission till that of Circumcision, Gen. 17.

Mr. B. adds. But in his Sermon since among much of the same stuff, he made the poor deluded people believe (I mean those that will believe him) that by infants being church members, I mean nothing else but that they suck of the breasts of godly parents, and are brought up in the family of godly parents; just as in our Dispute he would have faced me down, before thousands of people, that by church membership I meant nothing but Circumcision; I told him I did not, and he told the people still that I did. Is it any intemperance or harshness upon such dealings to say, that it is sad that (I will not say eminent holiness, but) a very little tenderness of conscience, and fear of God, and love of truth or charity to a brother, yea or common modesty should not restrain this! but that Mr. T. durst, first, take on him to search the heart, and know a man's thoughts to be contrary to his pr • fession; secondly, and contrary to the plain sense of his terms of speech; thirdly, and persuades multitudes of people that it is so. What hope can I have that ever Mr. T. should be brought to the truth, when he hath not ability enough to understand what is the meaning of [a member of the visible Church] and that after I had so fully told him! I was long before I could get him to confess, that Circumcision and Church membership were two things, and separable, till I gave him instance in women.

Answ. 1. In the Dispute I confess I did conceive that Mr. B. could mean nothing but the command of Circumcision by his ordinance of infants visible church membership, not imagining that he should magnify such a toy, as he hath in his Letter to me devised from Gen. 1.26, 27. & 3.15. &c. which, and not defect of truth, tenderness of conscience, modesty, or charity (in all which whether of us be defective the Lord will judge) made me so confident he did mean as I then said. 2. But that I ever said in my Sermon, that by infants being church members he meant nothing else but that they suck the breasts of godly parents, and are brought in the family of godly parents, I do not yet believe. This I might, and I think did say, and do say it again, That I knew no sign whereby infants are visible church members, except those be signs which are mentioned. 3. That I was long in yielding the separation of Circumcision and visible church membership, it was because I conceived that he meant infants of o • her people besides the circumcised, were visible church members▪ but when I found he meant that they were distinct and separable in the people of the Jews, I yielded it.

He proceeds thus. And now must I be fain to show, that church membership is neither sucking the breast of a godly woman, nor being brought in the family? What a hard word is this [Church member?] when I know not possibly how to speak it plainer. Why, Sir, where is the difficulty? Is it in the word Church? I suppose we are agreed what a Church visible is? at least you understand it? Or is it in the term [member?] why, do you not know what a [member] is? How understand you Paul's discourse about the members and body? Do you understand what is totum aggregatum & pars totius? Do yo • understand what it is to be a member of a City, or of a family? and why not of a Church? If I say children are members of this Kingdom (or (to please you) Commonwealth) or if I say children are members of every City in the land, and of every family where they are, this is all true; and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it▪ And why not when I say, that infants are members of the Church? But if you will not understand, there is no remedy.

Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is, hath appeared before in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible church members, not because of the difficulty of the thing, but because Mr. B. had a language (as I then imagined, and now find) of his own, of a mediate Disciple and a visible Church member by another's faith, without any note in their persons whereby they are discernible sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children: Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me, that another's faith could be a form o • note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember, or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do, I shall not trouble him to show that church membership is neither sucking of the breast, nor being brought up in a godly family, but shall (passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdom into Commonwealth) confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdoms and Cities. Till then, I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible church membership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine.

But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor, 1. from Mal. 2.15. where he would have [ a seed of God ] to be visible church members. But 1. he nowhere shows this to be the sense: 2. this is not the sense: For here the proper end of marriage is expressed, which is common to believers and infidels. But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be church members visible or invisible, neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it, but to propagate a legitimate posterity, who are called, a seed of God, because according to his institution. But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review, sect. 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here, in the 17th. section. 2. Because infants in Abraham's family were church members before Circumcision. Which I grant after the time of Abraham's call, and God's separating his house to be his people; and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abraham's call, Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument, and deny the consequence of the major. Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things, which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion. 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants church members, I grant it; yet it made them visible church members, though not of itself alone, yet with other signs: So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred, yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church. 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh church members, how far it is true is shown above at large, and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause. 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant (as he saith) how is it a seal (as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself) as somewhat more then a bare sign? 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh church members, but which promised Abraham the extraordinary privileges after his believing, then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of, then the Covenant which maketh church members; which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ, it follows, 1. That the Covenant, Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace. 2: That it promised extraordinary privileges to Abraham. 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise, and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants, but peculiar to Abraham and his seed, which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses. 4. Neither doth the Apostle say, Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision ; nor doth it follow, if he did, that church membership then went before it. 5. It may be, and by learned men is questioned, whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of God's Covenant, Gen. 17.14. and if they were, it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before, the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant, but a breaking of God's command in that Covenant; and their cu • ting off from God's people, might be by preventing from being God's people, as well as by making them not his people who were. 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate, that Abraham's family was then first made a Church, yet in calling that Church the Circumcision, it intimates, that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be God's people: And if the Scrip • ure do not intimate, that then infants were first admitted members, as Mr. B. saith here, it will concern him to show where the Scripture intimates their admission before, and how. I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words, p. 24. and elsewhere, that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism, so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision▪ I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly, the concealing of which in the Dis • ute, and since, hath occasioned the misleading of many, and a great part of my trouble.

3. Mr. B. argues thus. That infants were church members before Circumcision, I prove most likely thus: If God had before the same tender love to the faithful and their seed as he had after, and there be no mention in Scripture when the church membership of infants did begin (since the first infants) then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision (but rather with the first infant of faithful Adam, though he after fell off) because God's love to the faithful and their seed, was as great before as after: But the antecedent is true▪ therefore the consequent. He that will prove a beginning of infants church membership since the first infants, let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it, and I will believe him (which I never ex • ect to be done)

Answ. 1. This reason, if it were good, might as well prove the invisible as well as visible church membership of all infants of believers, and the visible church membership of the seed unborn as well as born, and of the most open profane children of believers, as well a • the youngest children born into the world. 2. The love of God was never to the faithful and their seed universally, I mean the special distinguishing love of God, nor to any of them but according to his election of grace. 3. God might and did love the faithful and their seed, and yet the infant seed were not visible church members afore Abraham's time. 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abraham's inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible church members, was from his peculiar d • sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons coming should be expected, which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people, whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies. 5. The beginning of infants visible church membership is sufficiently shown b • fore, in that it is not shown to have been anywhere but in the Hebrew nation. 6. If Adams infants, he standing in integrity, had been visible church members, yet they had been such only in the Church by nature, which is nothing to the present point of visible church membership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church, and some not. From hence I answer to the argument, 1. by denying the antecedent, that there is no mention in the Scripture when the church membership visible of infants did begin. 2. The consequence of the major, if it did not, it proves not the visible church membership of infants afore Abraham's time, much less from Adams crea • ion, since then there was no such Church to be as now we inquire • f, and God's love might be to believers seed, and yet they no visible church members.

The last argument, whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible church membership before Abraham's time, which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely, he hath, in his Letter to me before recited, I think to the utmost he could, urged it, and the answer thereto is fully made here, sect. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. and thereby it may appear, not only to a man of common sense, but of acute sense, that there is likelihood that infants should be visible church members in Abraham • family, and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs, and that from the Scripture, and yet God's love as great to Noah, Sem, and their seed as to others. Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entered wi •• our first parents presently upon the fall, but visible Church membership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to be his people. And though the promise Gen. 3.15. comprehend infants, yet not all infants; and I wonder how Mr. B. being a man of common sense, should not discern that if he will have the whole seed of the woman comprised in the promise Gen. 3.15▪ and that they are thereby Church members, he must baptize all the posterity of Eve, which he makes a thing to be avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it. And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribbling, that he cites Revel. 12.17. to prove Satan's enmity against the whole seed of the woman, against our infants no doubt ▪ when the woman, Revel. 12.17. is not Eve, as Gen. 3.15. but the woman clothed with the Sun ▪ commonly conceived to represent the Chr • stian Church, and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God, and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST, which cannot be said of infants. But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth, or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity, and proceed to the next.

Answ. 1. The speech of God's proneness to mercy more then severity, is according to my apprehension of God's attributes not right, nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech, such as should be used in Disputes▪ For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God, and goodness; yet the term of proneness to severity, intimates an inclination or desire to it, which is stopped by a contrary inclination; whereas God's attributes are all equally in him, nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another, but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will. 2. It is falsely supposed, as if visible Church membership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church membership, were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin, whereas the taking or not taking into visible Church membership i • as election to eternal life, or reprobation an act of sovereignty and liberty, which God useth as he pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions. 3. It is also as falsely supposed that by not taking infants into visible Church membership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies. For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Church members, puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies, even as well as if they were taken to be visible Church members and baptized. 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Church membership, to wit, eternal life, out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb, are abortives, or still born. And if Mr. B. do deny it he must hold a tenet like the Papists, that without his visible Churchmembersh • p infants are damned. 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations, in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah come already, freedom from the bondage of the law, in the pouring out of the spirit, in the new Covenant▪ &c. although infants be not visible Church members. 6. God's tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church, it being not out of any defect of mercy in God, or deprivation of mercy to them, which they may not have without it, but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not be by natural descent, but by faith, not national but of believers of all Nations. 7. How God is said to admit into visible Church membership infants needs explication, admission, as I have hitherto conceived it, being the act of the administratour of baptism, according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense, that God will baptize some infants with water, which is a fri • olous conceit. 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should be granted him, the conclusion should be rather, that God will not permit the infants of the godly to be put to death, but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors, for otherwise he should be more prone to severity to the wicked, then to mercy to the godly and their seed. For all the instances he gives of God's severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives; and therefore his inference if there were any force in it, would conc • ude not the visible church membership of the infants of the godly, but the preservation of their liv • s in common calamities and persecutions; which it is certain he doth not, but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all, Eccles. 9.2. Which things being premised, though • the minor of M. • s. first syllogism may be well questioned, yet waving it, I de • y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms, which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved, except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise, which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself, as if none could know what he doth not.

He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus. Ch 25.

Answ The minor of the first and sec • nd syllogism are both denied. For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ, either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavy curse, yet to be put out doctrinally, that is, to teach that infants are not visible Christian church members is not to put them under any curse at all, neither is it to be so, any judgment spiritual or bodily, nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Church members and baptized then they are without both, nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before, but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shown to be vain.

Answ. That non-visible Church membership of infants now is any part of judgment or curse for the parents sin hath not the least color of proof from this text or any other. The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business, it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan, while they kept God's Commandments and adhered to him, and curses on them and theirs, if they fell off from God; the curses are for the most part corporal and on the Israelites, and therefore the thing belongs not to the present point, nor is it true that always the judgment on the children is part of the curse on the parents neither in corporal nor spiritual evils.

And though the truly faithful are not cursed with the great curse of condemnation, yet those that are only so visibly may be so, yea and the faithful themselves are not altogether free from some curses both on themselves and their children, as on the other side, wicked men may have some blessings on them and their children. Mr. B. himself said in the next ch. 24. before, They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed, Psal. 137.9 yet were they Idolaters. Christ hath taken off the curse opposite to the blessing of righteousness, Gal. 3.9, 10, 13. not every curse from the faithful. Out of all which I infer, that were it granted that the non-visible church membership of infants were a judgment for the parents sin, and that Christ hath taken off the curse from the faithful, yet it would not follow, that believing▪ parents infants must be Christian visible church members, since some curses still stay on the children for the parents sin: Yea, Mr. B. before in his Letter tells me, that it was determined in one of their private Disputes (by himself no doubt, the Dr. of the Chair in the College of Worcestershire Ministers at Kidderminster) that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt. I hast after Mr. B.

SECT. LXXII. Mr. Bs. 21 th. Arg. ch 26. from the absurdity of my Doctrine making all infants to be members of the visible Kingdom of the Devil, is answered.

CH. 26. saith he,

Answ. 1. That which I said about remote consequences not to be charged on men as their sentence, was spoken not from his charge of leaving all the infants to have their actual standing in the visible Kingdom of the Devil, but of putting them all out of the Covenant of grace; and this was made the bloody sentence of the Anabaptists, though no such thing can be proved of them by any of their sayings. And therefore the two answers here of Mr. B. are impertinent, my speeches being about another point, though perhaps somewhat like it, and charged on us with it. And to Mr. Bs. answers I reply, 1. Mr. B. seems to me to oppose ineptly a direct consequence to a remote, whereas a near consequence is opposed to a remote, not a direct; for a remote consequence may be direct▪ as well as a near. But it is frequent with Mr. B. to abuse words. 2. If a person acknowledge a third place they that shut infants out of heaven may not be charged with it as their sentence, that they go to hell, which Mr. Bs. limitation intimates he acknowledgeth. And then by like reason this is not to be charged on me, for that I deny infants visible church membership, that I leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil, since I leave them in a neutral state, of which more anon. 3. I shall examine the charge on my Doctrine, which I deny by denying the minor of Mr. Bs. syllogism. 4. Though Mr. B. call the passages in my Apology, p. 64. vain, yet it will appear there's no vanity in any of them. 5. The argument by which I proved that unbaptized persons may be in Christ's visible Kingdom, which (Mr. B. confesseth) did fitly oppose Mr. Ms. imputation of leaving them all in the Devils visible Kingdom to whom we denied Baptism, I think will serve against Mr. Bs. opinion. For if it be true that infants are admitted into the visible Church by Baptism (which is his position, p. 24, 25.) then they are out of it afore they are baptized, (for afore admission none is in, but without,) and if so, according to Mr. Bs. doctrine, infants are in the visible Kingdom of the Devil, since he denies a third estate, and the horrid consequence is to be charged on Mr. Bs. doctrine, not on mine. 6. Mr. Bs. way of charging my doctrine is at vain as Mr. Ms. Thus it proceeds.

For if it be certain (as you say) that no infants are members of the vis • ble Church, they are out of it: And then I argue thus. If there be no third estate on earth, but all are either in the visible Church of Christ, or in the visible Kingdom of the Devil; then that doctrine which puts them out of the visible Church of Christ, doth leave them in the visible Kingdom of the Devil. But that there is no third state, but that all the world is in one of the two Kingdoms, I prove thus. The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called out of the world, and Christ faith, he hath chosen them out of the world, and that they are not of the world, and in the same place divers times call's the Devil [the Prince of this world,] Joh. 12.31. & 14.30. & 16.11. & 15.19. & 18.36. & 17.6, 16. And the Apostle calleth him the God of the world, 2 Cor. 4.4. So then, if the Devil be the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church, and out of which the Church is taken: then all those that are not taken out of the world with the Church, are still of the world where Satan is Prince: But the antecedent is before proved, therefore the consequent is true. The world and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution.

Answ. 1. The world and the Church are not in all the places cited contradistinct. For Joh. 18.36. this world comprehends the Church as well as them without, Christ's Kingdom was not from the Church by their weapons, or other procurement; but this world is opposed to heavenly power, and gift, from whence Christ had his Kingdom. 2. Nor in the rest of the places where the Devil is termed the God of this world, or the Prince of this world, or the Disciples are said not to be of the world, can the speech be meant of infants; for of them of whom it is said that the Devil is the God of this world, by the world are meant, 2 Cor. 4.4. those that believe not, in whom he hath blinded their minds, that the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them ; and so must the rest be understood, where he is said to be the Prince of this world, according to what is said Ephes. 2.2. which is not to be said of infants; and in other places, as John 15.19. John 17.14.16. they are said to hate the Apostles, which is not to be said of infants: And therefore from hence they are not proved to be in the Devils Kingdom, though they were reprobates. 3. The world is not in these places opposed to the visible Church, so that whoever are in the visible Church are not of the world, and they who are of the world are not of the visible Church. For 1. the world out of whom the Apostles were called, were the Jewish Church, which if Mr. B. do not (as I conceive he doth) make the visible Church of God when the Apostles were called, sure Mr. Bl. Mr. Cobbet, and others do, as I have shown before, and therefore the world is not put as contradistinct to the visible Church. 2. The world is in the places cited so described by their actions of hating the Apostles, by their exclusion out of Christ's prayer, Joh. 17.9. by their Prince Satan, by the Apostles calling and choosing out of them, that the world cannot be construed only to note non-visible church members, but a party that are obstinate enemies to Christ, and so reprobates, whether in the visible Church, or out of it; and if it stand in direct contradistinction to the Church (which I find not in any of the places cited) it is to the invisible, not to the mere visible Church: so that they who are without the visible Church, may be no part of the world therein meant; and they that are within the visible Church, may be part of the world. 4. The definition, that the Church are a people called out of the world, being expounded of the visible Church, is meant of outward call, which infants are not capable of, and so the definition excludes infants from being a part of the Church there meant, and yet they are not in the world in the sense in which it is taken in the Texts mentioned (except Joh. 18.36.) For they are not haters of Christ or his Apostles, nor recusant unbelievers, nor such as obey Satan as their Prince. But if it be expounded of the invisible Church, and the calling meant of invisible operation of the spirit, I deny not but elect infants may be so called out of the world, and be part of the invisible Church.

These things premised, I answer 1. The conclusion is not in the latter syllogism the same with the minor in the former syllogism which should have been proved. 2. The antecedent or minor in the later syllogism, which is this, [ the Devil is the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church, and out of which the Church is taken. ] if it be meant of the visible Church I deny. For neither is the world in any of the Texts distinct from the visible Church, but the visible Church or some members of it are the world there meant, and the Devil the Prince of them, and the visible Church in respect at least of many perhaps most of their members not taken out of the world, but in it still; nor is the Devil the Prince of them that yet are uncalled by an outward call from the world, if as infants they be not by their choice and actions conjoined to the world, but of them that voluntarily adhere to and act with the wicked world. Infants are neither in the world as it is there taken, nor without, that is, they are neither with them nor agai • st them in their present state; but (as they say in Logic) a whelp till the 9th. day is neither blind nor seeing, so an infant till it act is neither within nor without the world visibly, in which Satan is Prince. Nor are those dictates of Mr. B. true, or proved by the Scriptures cited, that no man who is known to be out of Christ's visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satan's visible Kingdom, that the world and the Church visible contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution. But if [ the world ] be taken for reprobates, and the Church be taken for the invisible Church of the elect, I grant it is true that infants are in one part, and that Satan or God is Prince of them: But this is nothing for Mr. Bs. purpose, though it be most agreeable to some passages, as Joh. 17.9, &c. about the world and the Church.

Mr. B. proceeds thus. If it be said, that yet they are not visibly in Satan's Kingdom: I answer, If no infants be of Christ's visible Church, and this be a known thing, then they are visibly out of it; and if they be visibly out of that Church, then they are visibly of the world which is Satan's Kingdom, seeing the world and the Church contain all.

Answ. Neither is it true, that if it be a known thing that infants be not of Christ's visible Church, then they are visibly out of it▪ except it be so known from their sensible action; nor do the world, taken in the sense opposite to God's people, and the visible Church contain all, as Mr. B. dictates. Mr. B. adds.

If it be said, they may be of the invisible Church, and yet not of the visible, nor of Satan's Kingdom; I answer, 1. it is visibly and not invisibly that the aforesaid distribution is to be understood. 2. I shall anon prove, that the visible Church is wider then the invisible, and that ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church, who are not of the visible.

Answ. 1. How far the former speech is true or false, is shown before. 2. As for the later, though we may not judge ord • narily these or those particular persons to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible, yet we may judge some infants at least are so, though non • be of the visible Church.

Answ. It is a weariness to the flesh to write books, it is much more when a man is to answer such scriblings as this of Mr. B. which being so magnified as it hath been, and written with so much confidence and insolent provocations, is a monument of the boldness and shallowness of readers and writers in this age. What frivolous arguing are here, Christ destroyed him that had the power of death, Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others, Ergo they were of Satan's kingdom as it is contradistinct to Christ's visible Church till Christ by death fetched them out? If Satan's power of death visibly over infants, show them to be in Satan's visible kingdom as contradistinct to the visible Church, doth not the same prove all the infants of believers to be in Satan's visible kingdom, as well as the infants of unbelievers? yea doth it not prove the visible Church to be in Satan's visible kingdom? For over them Satan had this power of death as visibly as over the infants of unbelievers. Yea wherein doth the power of death visibly show a persons being in the visible kingdom of Satan more then Jobs smiting in his body by Satan, or the woman's who was a daughter of Abraham and bound by Satan 18. years, shown them to have been then in the visible kingdom of the Devil as contradistinct to the visible Church? Besides those that Christ is said to have fetched out or delivered are those who through fear of death were all their life-time sub • ect to bondage, Heb. 2▪ • 4. Doth Mr. B. interpret this of infants? Besides if it appear that infants generally were of Satan's kingdom visibly till Christ fetcheth them out, therefore those that are not fetched out are in still: And no man can say they are fetched out, except by some means or other it be visible or discernible, How can Mr. B. say any infants of believers are fetched out o • Satan's kingdom visibly? By what means is it visible or discernible that a believers infant is fetched out of Satan's visible kingdom and 〈◊〉 an unbelievers? Christ's death was visible it's true, but that either Christ's death did destroy visibly Satan, or visibly delivered those who were subject to bondage, or that by it is visible or discernible that a believers infant and not an unbelievers is fetched out of Satan's visible kingdom, is unknown to me. The ordinary means whereby it is visible that a person is fetched out of Satan's visible kingdom is in that he hears, obeys, and professeth the Gospel. Surely by this means or any other it is not visible or discernible, that any infant of the most sincere believer is fetched out of Satan's visible kingdom, therefore by Mr. Bs. own suppositions he cannot say that any believers infant is fetched out of the visible kingdom of the Devil, and so his argument is retorted on him: That doctrine which leaveth all infants in the visible kingdom of the Devil is false: But such is Mr. Bs. according to his own suppositions. Ergo. As for what he would impose on me, it is false, that God hath left it in the dark, it is clear as light at noon, that infants are neither in Christ's nor Satan's visible kingdom, and yet they have Christ or Satan for their • ing, and are to be in heaven or hell, as they are elect or reprobate; And therefore his talk of what I must find out is but his prattle, and of what he hath abundantly proved, is but his idle vapouring of himself.

3. Saith he, Sure the Apostle calls the world [them that are without] as distinct from the Church visible, who are within, Col. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.12. And he speaks it as the dreadful misery of them, those that are without God judgeth, 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. Now infants are either within or without, and to be without is to be of the world which the Devil is by Christ said to be Prince of.

Answ. To be without Mark 4.11. is to be without, not within God's election; to be without Revel. 22.15. is to be without the gates of the city the new Jerusalem, which I take to be all one as to be cast into outer darkness as Christ terms it. Either of these ways all infants are within or without, but [ those without ] in the places cited by Mr. B. cannot be said of infants, for they are not persons towards whom we are to walk in wisdom, Col. 4.5. or honesty, 1 Thes. 4.12. this being required that our example may not harden them, but it were ridiculous to require this in respect of infants. The Apostle doth not speak it as the dreadful misery of them that are without that God judgeth them 1 Cor. 5.12. but only mentions it as an intimation why they belonged not to his judgment, nor doth he in any of the places term them the world, who are without the visible Church, or Christ say that Satan is Prince of all that are not visible Church members, but of the world of reprobates, and such as are contrary to Christ and in whom he rules nor is the term [ those that are without ] in any of those places taken for them that are without privatively for want of capacity to understand, profess, and act for Christ, but for those who are positively without by the acts of their own will, not receiving Christ, nor embracing the profession of him, such as were unbelievers, fornicators, idolaters, &c. 1 Cor. 5.10, 11, 12. Such as could observe and did stumble at the evil practices of the Christians, Col. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.12. in which sense it is not true that infants are without, though they be privatively or negatively without the visible Church.

SECT. LXXIII. Mr. Bs. 22. arg. Ch. 27. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying, is answered.

CH. 27. Mr. B. goes on thus. The 22th. arg.

Answ. What I took heinously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. I did justly; what I said that there is no such covenant or promise in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers, I meant it of them as such, or universally what I said that God would have us to suspend our judgment of this matter, I meant whether this or that particular infant be in the Covenant of grace. To Mr. Bs. arg. I say if his major be meant of such a grounded hope as is certain from faith, believing a particular promise of God concerning believers infants dying in infancy (as Mr. B. seems to understand it) I deny the major, if very probable and likely from such declarations and promises and experiments as we have, I deny the minor, and shall follow Mr. B.

I will first, saith he, prosecute my argument and then consider of these words▪ understand therefore that 1. I do not charge their doctrine with a positive affirmation, that all infants do certainly perish; but with the taking away of all positive Christian well grounded hope of their salvation.

Answ. Yet by your charging us with this, that by our doctrine they are not so much as seemingly in a state of salvation, you do charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that they all certainly perish. And it will appear by that which follows that with you no hope of their salvation is Christian and well grounded, but what is cer • ain upon a promise of God apprehended by faith, in which is the chief difference between us.

You add, That the question now is not of particular infants of believers, but of the species or whole sort that so die; not whether this or that infant be certainly saved, or we have any such hope of it but the question is, whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will just • fie and save any infants in the world or any infants of helievers at all?

Answ Between whom the question is, as Mr. B here saith, I do not understand: the question between me and my Antagonists is not as Mr. B. here sets it down. I have always asserted that there is a certainty and hope that God will justify and save some infants in the world, some infants of believers, and have often acknowledged those that Christ prayed for, laying on his hands were elect ones, but the question is whether there be any such promise to a believer and his natural seed w • ich assures salvation to them as the seed of believers, and consequently whether there be a certain hope of the • all dying in their infancy that they shall be saved. This I have denied because I know no such promise in Scripture, and if there were it would prove the salvation of those at age though profane as Esau : For if the promise belong to the seed as such, and it includes salvation, then it assures 〈◊〉 all the seed of belie • ers, whether dying at age profanely or in infancy. So that it is not true, that the question is not whether this or that infant be certainly saved, or we have any such hope of it, nor is it true that the question is of the species or whole sort that so die, or whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justify and save any infants in the world, or any infants of believers at all, yea Mr. B. in the words next before would not charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish. But the question is whether there be a certainty from a promise that he will save them all dying in infancy, nor is the question of the species or whole sort of infants, but of the particular infants of believers.

Now, saith he, I affirm ▪ 1. that there is a ground of Christian hope left us in this, that God doth save some infants (yea and that particular ones, though that be not now the question.

Answ. Now this I affirm too, though I assert not such a certainty by promise to infants of believers, as Paedobaptists do.

2. Saith he, That they that put them all out of the visible Church leave us no such hope. I will begin with the later, which is the minor in the argument. And 1. I take it for granted, that to be a visible member of of the Church, and to be a member of the visible Church, is all one. He that denieth that, will but show his vanity; And that the invisible Church, or the sincere part is most properly and primarily called the Church, and the body of Christ; and the Church as visible containing also the unsincere part, is called the Church; secondarily and for the sake of the invisible, and so it is called the body, because men seem to be of the invisible Church, therefore they truly are of the visible: If we were fully certain by his own external discoveries, that any man were not of the invisible Church, that man should not be taken to be of the visible. Therefore the properties and privileges of the invisible Church are usually given to the visible (as to be Saints, holy, all the children of God by faith, Gal. 3.26. to be Christ's body, 1 Cor. 12.13. to be branches in Christ, Joh 15.2, &c. because as the sincere are among them, so all visible members seem in the essentials of Christianity to be sincere; therefore if any converted Jew or Pagan were to be taken into the Church upon his pr • fession, we ought not to admit him except his profession seem to be serious and so sincers; for who durst admit him, if we knew he came but in jest, or to make a scorn of Christ and Baptism? So that to be a member of the visible Church, or of the Church as visible, or a visible member of the Church are all one, and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ (commonly called invisible) or of the true mystical body of Christ. Therefore even Cardinal Cusanus calleth the visible Church, Ecclesia conjecturalis, as receiving its members on conjectural signs. And our Divines generally make the unsound hypocrites to be but to the Church as a wooden leg to the body▪ or at the best as the hair and nails, &c. and as the straw and chaff to the corn: And so doth Bellarmine himself, and even many other whom he citeth of the Papists (Aquinas, Petr. a soto, Joh. de Turrecremata, Hugo, Alex▪ Alensis, Cano.) And when Bellarmine feigneth Calvin and others to make two militant Churches, our Divines reject it as a calumny and manifest fiction; and say, that the Church is not divided into two sorts, but it is a twofold respect of one and the same Church; one as to the internal essence, the other a • to the external manner of existing as Ames. speaks.

Answ. Though much of this passage be yielded by me, yet I reject those speeches [ because men seem to be of the invisible Church, therefore they truly are of the visible; to be a visible member of the Church is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ (commonly called the invisible) of the true mystical body of Christ ] For to be a visible member of the Christian Church is not all one as to seem to be of the invisible Church. For, 1. a person may be of the visible Church, according to Mr. B. who lives alone in America, and therefore seems to no man to be of the invisible Church, no man knoweth or judgeth probably or certainly him to be of Christ's mystical body. 2. A person may seem to be of the invisible Church, and yet not be of the visible, as an Indian while a Christian preacheth, who yet professeth not Christ, yet seems by his gestures to be affected with it, and sundry others. Therefore it is necessary to be a visible Church member, that his profession be visible, that is, be discernible to men's understanding through the sensibility of it. 3. To some a person may seem to be of the invisible Church, to others not, is he of the visible Church or not? or are both true? and if no • , how shall we know which is true, which not? 4. To seem to be of 〈◊〉 invisible Church is but accidental to the visibility of a Church member, though he should seem to none to be of the invisible Church, yea though through men's ignorance or uncharitableness the person should seem to be a reprobate or hypocrite, yet he might be nevertheleless a visible Christian, and so a churchmember of the catholic visible, which Mr. B. avoucheth. Mr. Bs. reasons here go upon a gross mistake, as if it were all one to be a visible churchmember, and to be received or admitted as a visible churchmember: and that a person were denominated visible from what men apprehend or what seems to them, whereas the denomination is, as Ames saith truly in the place meant by Mr. B. from the external form or manner of existing. Though a person be not to be received as a visible member of the Church because he seems not to be found, yet he may be a visible churchmember: Nor is he such because they pass a judgment on him, but because his profession is such as might show him to be a Christian, if any did observe it, or would candidly interpret it. But how far Mr. B. errs from the true understanding of the main point of his book, what it is to be a visible churchmember, sometimes making it the same with a seeming to be of the mystical body of Christ, sometimes a right to a benefit, and how indistinctly he speaks of this thing (which if he had minded any exact disquisition of truth, he should in the beginning of his Dispute have first cleared) is shown in the second part of this Review, sect. 17. at large pag. 228, &c. In this part, sect. 55, &c. And for want of observing this his mistake, I judge many learned men and others have been misled by him.

He saith, Again, you must understand, that to be a member of the visible Church is not to be a member of any particular or political body or society, as Rome would have it. And to be a visible member, doth not necessarily import that he is actually known to be a member; for he may live among the blind that cannot see that which is visible. But that he is one so qualified, as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgment of men to belong to the Church of Christ: therefore a man living alone in America, may yet be a member of the visible Church. For he hath that which constituteth him a visible member, though there be none to discern it.

Answ. 1. This passage doth overthrow Mr. Bs. definition of a visible Church member, which is, that he is one that seems to the judgment of man to be of the invisible Church : Now he that seems such, is actually known or discerned to be such; that seems so, which is thought to be so; Videtur quod sic, videtur quod non, in the Schools are express • ons of a man's opinion; but according to Mr. B. to be a visible churchmember doth not necessarily import he is actually known or discerned, therefore he may be a visible churchmember who doth not seem to the judgment of man to be of the invisible Church, and then the definition is not right, as not agreeing to everything defined. 2. His speeches He may live among the blind who cannot see that which is visible, that he is one qualified so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgment of men to belong to the Church of Christ, a man living alone in America hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there be none to discern it, do plainly intimate that visible church membership is constituted by some qualification which is visible, so that he ought thereupon to be esteemed in the judgment of men to belong to the Church of Christ therefore visible church membership is from some qualification sensible, and is before the esteem in the judgment of men to belong to the Church of Christ; and though such esteem should not follow, yet the person is a visible churchmember: and therefore Mr. B. doth most unskilfully define a visible churchmember to be one that seems, or is esteemed to be of the invisible Church. For though this be, and ought to be a consequent upon the other, yet it is not the same; but as I have shown, even according to Mr. B. they may be severed. And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible, so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgment of men to belong to the Church of Christ (which can be no other then his serious, sober, free, and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ) then my description of a visible churchmember is right, and infants that have no such qualification are not visible church members. To say that their parents are visible professors, is insufficient: For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the child's qualification, nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgment to belong to the Church of Christ; nor is the pa • ents profession any qualification of the child visible, neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible. (For relations, say Logicians, incur not into the sense) nor is the Fathers profession anymore his own childes profession then any other man's childes profession. So that Mr. Bs. own words being well heeded, overthrow his tenet and confirm mine. I go after him in the rest.

These things, saith he, explained, I proceed, and prove my minor thus. They that are not so much as seemingly (or visibly) in a state of salvation, of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved: But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church, they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation: Therefore of them so dying, we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation, of the Church to be all one, whereas there is a great difference, seemingly being in order to the understanding, visibly to the sense, he may be seemingly in the state of salvation, and of the Church, who is not so visibly, there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding, besides that which is discernible by the outward sense. Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly (as his words import) I deny his major as false; and to the contrary assert, that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved, who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation, that is, do not anything incurrent into the sense which may show they are in a state of salvation, as infants born, abortives, still-born, children dying in the womb, natural fools, phrenetiques: Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving, cursing by reason of their disease, destroying themselves, dying excommunicate justly from the Church, though visibly they are in a state of damnation▪ The minor is also false, they that are not visibly of the Church, may yet be visibly in a state of salvation, as an Indian yet not professing Christ, nor baptized, being affected with the preaching of Christ's love to man, so as to lift up his eyes to heaven, knock his breast, listen to the preacher, weep, kiss the preacher, follow him, keep company with him, &c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church, yet he is visibly in a state of salvation, and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved.

But Mr. B. tells us,

Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness, and confound it and visibility. 2. Where there is no seeming, there may be evidence; he should rather have said, Where there is no seeming, there is no judgment; for where nothing seems to a person, he passeth no judgment or opinion. 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shows a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence, and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility, as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not▪ &c. And in this present argument, Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation, and of the Church, which he makes evidence for a judgment upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation, p • g. 77, 78. as God's declarations, promises, &c. And therefore I deny that speech▪ where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence.

2. Saith he,

Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be.

2. Saith he,

Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent be meant of the visible Church (of which alone the conclusion is to be) then it is denied, and the proofs are all impertinent since they speak not of the visible Church as visible, but of the invisible.

2. Saith he, I next argue thus: If there be no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church, then there • no sure ground of hope (for faith and hope are conjunct; we may not hope with a Christian hope for that we may not believe) But there is no sure ground for such faith: (they that say there is let them show it if they can) Therefore there is no sure ground of hope.

Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to change the term [ well grounded hope ] in his first syllogism, into [ a sure ground of hope. ] For there may be a well grounded hope of many things, as that God will deliver from death in a battle, provide in a siege bread, &c. though there be no sure ground of hope cui f • ls • m subesse non potest, that God will do these things. 2. We have sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of some out of the visible Church, though not of all infants of believers. And this we have from God's declaration of the election of some not visible church members and consequently of their salvation, as Isaac and Jacob. Rom. 9.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. which is urged by Mr. B. himself pag. 78.

3. Saith he,

Answ. 1. I deny the consequence of the major, and to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer: 1. There is not one of all the texts that saith there is no ground of true Christian hope but a promise in God's word, though there are that prove the promise of God to be a ground of Christian hope: It would be too tedious to show the impertinency of each of them, it is sufficient to acquaint the Reader wherein the defect of proof is. 2. We may have the ground of a Divine revelation to support our hope, as of what God hath done, of his attributes and other declarations, although we have not a promise, which Mr. B. seems too unskilfully to confound with a Divine revelation which may be the ground of Christian hope. 2. The minor is not confessed by me to Isaac and Jacob God promised salvation afore they were born, therefore to them without the visible Church, the like to the Gentiles, to the Jews, Rom. 11.26. afore they are called, or in being: to all the elect there is a Covenant or promise in Christ of salvation, whether they be of the visible Church or not.

4. Saith he, Again, if God do add to the Church such as shall be saved, then we can have no true ground of Christian hope of the salvation of any that are not added to the Church: But that God doth add to the Church such as shall be saved, is the plain words of Scripture, Acts 2. last. Therefore we have no true ground of such hope of the salvation of those that are not so added to it. If any say that the text speaks of the invisible Church. I answer: 1. Then it would hold of the visible much more for the visible Church is far larger then the invisible, and contain the invi •• ble in it. 2. But the Text expressly speaks of the visible Church: For it was such a Church. 1. As were baptized. 2. And as the 3000. souls were in one day added to ; 3. And as continued in the Apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers ; 4. And were together and had all things common ; 5. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to them that needed ; 6. And continued daily in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house did eat with gladness, &c. 7. And as did praise God and had favor with all the people. And doubtless this was the visible Church: to this such as should be saved were added; yet not only such: for many false teachers and others did after go out from them; and such as Simon Magus were baptized; and false brethren was one cause of their sufferings. So that I doubt not but it is clear, that they that deny any infants to be members of the visible Church, do leave us no true ground for any Christian hope of their salvation.

Answ. The consequence of the major is denied, and the reason of the denial is because the speech is not simply convertible, he added to the Church such as should be saved, therefore all that shall be saved are added to the visible Church. Yea Mr. B. by confessing that they were not only the saved that were added to the Church acknowledgeth the proposition to be particular, some were added to the Church which should be saved, and this is convertible only thus; Ergo some that shall be saved were added to the Church, not universal, all that were added to the Church should be saved. So that we need not betake ourselves to the answer of understanding it of the invisible Church. Nor is there a necessity to understand it of eternal salvation. For the word being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the present tense may be translated the saved, that is as v. 40. by relinquishing of that crooked or perverse generation, and if Beza's conjecture hold that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the reading is to be, and some he daily added to the Church to be saved. Let the reading be either way, it proves not that there are none to be saved who are not added to the Church visible. And indeed such a proposition were false, since it is otherwise in the case of infants dying in the womb, still born, &c. Mr. Bs. inference, if Acts 2.47. be meant of the Church invisible then the speech, they that are to be saved are added to the Church holds much more of the visible, is vain. And the reason is as vain. For it is uncertain whether the visible Church be far larger then the invisible, considering the number of dying infants and the uncertainty how far their election and salvation extends, and though there be many of the visible Church who are not of the invisible, yet the visible doth not contain the invisible in it, there being many of the invisible Church who are not in the visible, and therefore it proves not that if they that are saved are of the invisible then they are much more of the visible. So that however it be that Mr. B. doubt not of the contrary, I am assured that the denying infants visible Church membership, leaves sufficient ground for Christian hope of their salvation.

Answ. 1. He hath nowhere made good this consequence, if infants be not of the visible Church, it will follow much more they are not of the invisible, or at least that we are not to judge them to be of the inv • sible Church at all. 2. It doth not follow whosoever believeth not shall be damned therefore infants, because the text itself shows the speech to be limited only to those unbelievers to whom the Gospel is preached, v. 15. yet it follows none are disciples and to be baptized but the taught, Matth. 18.19, • 0. because Christ first appointed persons to be taught by preaching the Gospel, whom he appointed to be baptized and • ccounted disciples. 3. Let Mr. B. take these arguments and try whether he can prove infants visible Church membership from them. They of whom is the kingdom of heaven are justified and sanctified. But of some infants is the kingdom of heaven, Ergo. They who are elected to life, for whom Christ died, are justified and sanctified are they die. But so some are infants, Ergo. 4. The argument is answered from Mark 16.16. Let M. B. try how he can answer mine from Matth. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15, 16. &c. as it is in the second part of this Review, sect. 5, &c. or as it is in my Precursor, sect. 16. pag. 66. out of his words, which is shown in the 2 d. part of the Review, sect. 4. pag. 66, 67. not to be answered by him in his Praefestinantis morator. He that nullifi • s that argument must make reformation of human additions to the worship of God as part of it void.

Mr. B. adds, But why do I expect th •• when he suspendeth his judgment? If he mean it of particular infants, it is not home to the question; for so he must sus • end his • udgement concerning the salvation of every particular person, as certain, seeing he is uncertain of the sincerity of any: And yet I hope he will not conclude it uncertain whether any man he saved? But if he mean it of all the species of infants, then I must say he suspendeth much of his faith, hope and charity; and that doctrine which suspendeth our belief of God and charity to our own children, shall be none of my Creed.

Answ. The suspension of judgment which in my postscript sect. 4. I said God would we should have, was concerning the certainty of salvation of all infants of believers dying in infancy, which was meant of particular infants, to wit the infants of believers, and it was home to the question between me, and Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. whether there were such a certainty of salvation of every believers infant dying so, by virtue of the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen 17.7? There was no such question as Mr. B. would impose on me, as if I doubted whether any infant should be saved? But this I did and do still conceive, that there is no promise of salvation to every believers infants, and therefore we are to suspend our judgment concerning this or that particular infant, not of all the species of infants as he speaks. And though I am certain of every believers salvation, yet I am not certain of this or that professor that he is a sincere believer, and therefore concerning this I am to suspend any peremptory judgment of science, yet I am not to suspend my judgment of charity, which yet I am to suspend towards infants, there being no actions of theirs which may occasion such a judgment. Nor hereby do I suspend any act of faith, hope or charity which I ought to have towards God or my own children; and if what I hold be no part of Mr. Bs. Creed, yet it may be part of the Creed of as holy and learned a man as he is.

He adds,

Answ. I said God would have us to rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9.18. to wit concerning the salvation of all believers infants, and to this I was induced by the Apostles arguing, v. 11, 12, 13. concerning Jacob and Esau. But this was not alleged by me as a ground of hope, and therefore though Mr. Bs. consequences be granted, there is nothing against what I