Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

Thus much for the proof of which Mr. B. was confident. To his words. If this [my alleging Gal. 4.1, &c. Matth. • 8.19. as before] be not to feign God to say what we would have him; yea contrary to what he doth say, then I am quite mistaken. I answer, I grant it, and add that I do not call to mind that ever I found a man of so much fame, and confidence, so foully mistaken as Mr. B. is in this point. I proceed as fast as I can after M. B. who hath made the way foul by his scribbling.

SECT. LI. The arguments from the altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call, the ceasing of the High Priest, &c. to prove Infants now no visible Church-members are made good against Mr. Bs. 5th. Ch. plain, &c. part. 1.

BUt let us hear, saith he, whether his arguments be any clearer then these texts for him. The sum of all his arguments, that I can hear, is this: If the Church constitution whereof they were members be taken down, then their membership is taken down: but the Church &c. therefore &c. To prove the antecedent this is added: If their Church call be altered, then their Church constitution is altered: but their Church call i • altered, therefore, &c. To prove the minor, he shows the different calls then and now. 1. Then they were called by Moses or Abraham▪ • he Magistrate; but now by Ministers. 2. Then all the nation was called in one way, even servants and all; but now God cal • here one and there one. Besides he shows, that the Temple Priesthood, sacrifices are taken down and therefore the Church constitution. This is the very strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say, to prove the repeal of God's merciful Ordina • ce of infants Church membership. And I cannot choose but say, They are silly souls, and tractable to novel • y, and easily seduced from the truth of God and far from the stability of judicious tender consciencit Christians, who will be drawn by such misty, cloudy arguing, without any Scripture proof; yea and against so much Scripture.

Answ. And I cannot choose but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is dis • ingenuous and Sop • istical▪ in sore • a • ling Readers by such censures, which are the mere evaporations of his own ignoranc • and confidence, and I might add arrogance. But to the argument. I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal, or that it is cloudy, misty arguing, against any Scripture, But from it. The argument is ta • en from the notation of the word Church, put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines, yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof, &c. pag. 71, 8 • , that the Greek word for Church is from calling out, and that the Church is a peo • le or a society of persons called out of the world. Whence it follows, that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church, they that have not an outward call, are not of the visible Church: But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church, therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church. The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church, which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church, 1. by authority, 2. of a whole people together. 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the only way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel, 2. that this call is of single pe • sons severed in their habitations, relations, &c. The former is proved by story. Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel, one by Abraham, and that was Gen. 17. (perhap • there was some other, but no other occurs to me) and that was according to God's direction by authority, taking in all his house together, not by preaching as the Apostles did. The other of Moses Exod. 19 &c. which was done in like manner. The later is proved by institution and practice to be seen in these and many more Scriptures, Ephes. 4.11, 12, &c. Acts 2.41, 47. Act. 8.12, &c. But of this which is the only outward churchcal infants are not the subjects, therefore neither of visible church membership, which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches. This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by human generation (which it must be if it be as the Jewish church-membership was) as Joh. 1.13. and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible, is from their different calling. They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called, they are not of the visible who have not the outward call. Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit, est vocatio: unde etiam & nomen suu • accipit & definitionem. Hudson vindic. p. 67. exte • nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church. Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24. cum 10.32. Ames Medul▪ Th. l. 1. c. 31. §. 6.7. But infants have not the outward call, they are not brought into the Church by the word. Therefore they are not visible Church-members.

What saith Mr. B. now? 1 You must distinguish between the particular Church of the Jews, and the universal visible Church. And here I lay down these three propos • tions. 1. The Jews Church was not the whole universal visible Church that God had then in the world. And this he allegeth as my opinion with others and confirms it by sundry arguments.

Answ. Though the Assembly at Westminster say Confess. of faith ch. 25. art. 2. The visible Church, which is also Catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law) consists, &c. yet I agree with Mr. B in his proposition though not in all his proofs. For the text Gen. 18.19. proves not the continuance of the Church in any of Abraham's posteri • y but those by Isaac, nor do, the instances of Bethuel, Hiram, the Ninevites, Candace Queen of the Ethiopians, evince a Church of God distinct from the Jewish.

His 2d. proposition is, if the Jewish Church had been the whole visible Church, yet it would have been con •• derable in both respects; both as the Jewish Church and as the universal, whic • 〈◊〉 pass. His third is.

There is no member of any particular Church, who is not also a member of the universal Church: Therefore infants were members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Jews particular Church; so that if it could be proved that their membership in that particular Church is overthrown, yet that is nothing to prove that they have lost their standing in the universal Church. But this shall fullier improve and vindicate her after.

Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal, if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular: as an excommunicate, Apostate, &c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church, if he have no standing therein distinct from that in the particular Church, which he hath lost. And this was the case of infants, they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church; and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members, (as it is,) and another erected in which they are not reckoned, infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members. And • his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this.

2. Sa • th Mr. B. You must distinguish between the essentials, and some accidentals of the Jewish Church: The Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifice, &c. were merely accidental, and might be repealed without the re • eal of the essentials, or the ordinance establishing the Church itself.

Answ. I grant the distinction, but find it of no use, till it be shown what are the essentials▪ and what not; what the ordinance is that established that Church, that it is of the essentials of that Church, that infants be visible members is of the essentials of that Church: which to assert were all one as to say, the Jewish Church had been no Church visible without infants, which I take to be absurd.

3. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. The distinction is of the • ewish Church considered in itself, and comparatively as to others; but the application is (as if Mr. B. had forgotten his distinction) of their privile • ges considered absolutely, and compara • ive, and t • en he saith if the Jews had believed, they had lost only their comparative privileges, not in themselves considered. Concerning which conceits, it had been requisite, if he would be understood, that either he should have given a catalogue of each sort of privileges, or such a description of them as whereby we mi • ht understand which are of the one sort, which of the other. My opinion is, that had the Jews believed, that is every individu • l Jew of age, or the greatest part • ad received the Gospel, they should have enjoyed with the Gentiles all the privileges of the Covenant of saving graces; the Jewish people should have enjoyed their possessions in their own Land, which me thinks Christ's words import, Luke 19.4 • , 42, 43. But deny that they should have this as a privilege to them, that their children should be accounted visible members of the Christian Churches. For God's purpose was to erect a Church universal uniformly by preaching the Gospel, and not by birth; and it appeared plainly by the practice of John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles, who never took in any believing paren • s infant to Baptism and the Christian Church, no • admitted any Jew without his own personal profession of Faith in Christ. Nor is the contrary proved by Ephes. 2.14. but that very thing I assert. For the taking down the partition wall was by taking away the Jewish rites, and Church-state, that none could be join • d to them without conformi • y to the Law, now one Church is made of both by faith through the Gospel, Ephes. 3.6. And in like ma • ner when Peter took in Cornelius, Acts 10. he declared God's mind in his Vision. v. 35. that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him ; but he doth not say that everyone of their infant children are taken into the Church, nor did he any act whereby to show that to be God's mind. Nor are Mr. Bs. observations of any force, for they suppose that if the Church state of the Jews were altered, Paul would have spoken of their unchurching, Ephes. 2.14. and Peter, Acts • . of their making unclean which implies as if there were no other way then these to alter their Church-state, and to leave the infants out of the visible Church Christian; whereas I have often shown the contrary, th • t it was done by taking in only to bap • ism b • lievers, releasing from the burden of Circumcision and the Law, which might have been though all the Jews of age had been believers.

4. Saith Mr. B. So when we call the Jews [a National Church] and when Mr. T. saith God to • k the whole Nation to be his Church, it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and restriction to that Nation only, as if God had not called any other whole Nation: and so it may be true, that the Jews only were a National Church (though yet it is doubtful, as what is said of Melchizedek before showeth:) and also in regard of their National and Church unity (which yet is the excellency and strength of all other Churches;) or else by a National Church may be meant, as if all were Church members that were of that Nation, and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation: And thus I perceive it is by many understood. But this is notoriously false.

Answ. It is in this last s • nse I mean it, and I think it manifestly true with these explications. 1. That they were of that Nation by birth property, or proselytism. 2. That they were Church-members while they continued to be of that Nation any of these way • . 3. That they were Church-members with some dis • uiparance or inequality of privileges. Let's view Mr. Bs. proofs.

For it was then as well as now, the Covenant of God (wherein he took them for his peculiar people, and they took him for their only God, the parents engagiag for themselves and their children) which made them members of the Church For 1. No aged person, no not servants, much less ordinary proselytes were members, except they entered the Covenant; though they are commanded to circumcise all in their house, yet it is supposed, that by their interest and authority, they caused them first to enter the Covenant: Therefore they were to circumcise the servants bought with money, as being absolutely their own, whom they had most interest in; but not the hired servants, whom they had no such authority over (except they became proselytes voluntarily)

Answ. A mutual Covenant, such as that at Mount Sinai, I deny not to have made the people of Israel the Church of God, and consequently the infants then born visible Church-members. But I d • ny that it was then by reason of the parents engaging for themselves and their children, since it appears plainly by Exod. 19.7, 8. & 24.3. that the Elders of the people only engaged for the whole Nation. And the same I conceive of the Covenant Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. The Covenant Gen. 17. if it were mutual, it doth not appear that any other then Abraham himself engaged for his house. Nor do I deny such a mutual Covenant, if the Lord should enter into it, or declare his mind concerning it, would make a Nation, and consequently infan • s Church members. But according to the constitution of the Christian visible Church I deny God makes any such Covenant or declares his mind that by such Covenant he will gather his Church. Yet were it yielded that the Covenant made them members of the Church, the Propositions are true nevertheless with my explications, That all were Church-members that were of that Nation, and no more is required to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation. And to what he alledgeth, I acknowledge that ordinary Proselytes at first admission were not members without their Covenant engaging them and theirs in their power to the observance of the Law of Moses, and the s • me reason I conceive of hired servants, and that thereby they became of that Nation, or as the Jewish Doctors say were regenerated, and lost their former kindred, and became Jews. But it was not enough to make them of that Church, though they covenanted or professed to take Je • ovah for their only God, except they took on them to observe Moses Law. Therefore Cornelius was no visible member of the Jewish Church, though he feared God with all his house, but was shunned by them, Acts 10.28. & 11.3. as an unclean, uncircumcised person of another Nation. Nor do I find any proof of that which Mr B. suppose • h, that all aged persons, as servants bought were before they were circumcised • aused by their Masters interest and authority to enter the Covenant fi • st. But this doth no whit overthrow the Positions, That all were C • urch-members that were of that Nation, and that no more was re • uired to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation. Nor is there anymore force in what Mr. B. adds. 2. And though they were taken into the Church in infancy yet if they afterward forsook or renounced the Covenant, they were to be cut off from the Church, yea to be put to death. 3. And in many cases their children were to be put to death with them. And therefore their Chu • ch was not so National as that any in the Nation should be a member of it who forsook the Covenant. Which I grant: For t • en they ceased to be of that Nation, that is in that policy or Commonwealth de jure at least, if not de facto. What he adds, Indeed God chose the seed of Abraham • n a special manner? but not to be Church members immediately, but first to enter into his Covenant, and take him for their God, and so to be Church mem • ers, is not true. For immediately upon their birth, the seed of Abraham were Church-members visible, though neither they nor their parents, or any other entered into Covenant for them: and if this speech of Mr. B. were true, neither had Jews infants been visible Church members, and so not to be circumcised (contrary to the command) nor according to Mr. Bs. and other Paedobaptists principles our infants visible Church-members, nor to be baptized without such entering in to Covenant going before, which will nullify the infant Baptism of many, and overthrow the argument from the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. produced as sufficient for infant Baptism by most Paedobaptists without any other entering the Covenant.

5. Saith Mr. B. You must distinguish betwixt breaking off that particular individual Church or some members of it, and the repealing or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church.

Answ. The breaking off the particular individual Church of the Jews is a term I meet with Rom. 11.20. But the term of repealing or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church is a new term not used that I know of anywhere, but, if I may use Dr. Kendals phrase, in the Schola illustris of Kidderminster A repeal of a Law is an obvious woe • d; but this term of repealin • of the species or essential nature of the Church is like the speech of a man doting. I have heretofore learned that the essences of things are invariable, eternal, definitions are of eternal verity, conformable to the Idea in God's mind, though existences be mutable: and therefore to expect a proof of a repeal or breaking off the species or essential nature of the Church, is to expect a proof of an impossibility.

6. Saith Mr. B.

Answ. The nature, species, essential form of the Church is that which is expressed in the definition of it, in which Mr. B. himself pag. 82. saith, certainly all Divines are agreed, that it is a society of persons separated from the world, to God, or called out of the world, &c. now a law on which this might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream: Laws repealeable determine not of essences, but things to be existent, to wit, particular actions to be done or omitted. Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant. For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual, and so may be of the existence of a Church, yet if God do separate or call by authority, preaching, power, or any other way, without a Covenant, they will have the essence of a Church. The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species, but an individual, and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature, species or essential form of the Church, unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong. For if so, without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church. What the privileges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation, as part of that people, such inheritance, and other benefits in part which their parents had, which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off, I do not well understand: Nor do I know any privilege, which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible, which they should have had if they had been taken in. For the privileges of the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members, were, as I conceive, to cease upon the coming of Christ, and the erection of the Christian Church, not by any punitive execution of a Law, but a wise dispensation of God, as he conceived fittest for his own glory, and the enlarging of the Kingdom of his Son. The species, as Mr. B. speaks, that is, the whole order, rank, series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church, but only the infants of the Jewish Nation. Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence, but by altering the Church-state from Jewish into Ch • istian as God thought best.

7. Saith Mr. B. Again, you must distinguish betwixt breaking off primarily and morally only by Covenant breaking and merit, (as an adulterous woman doth break the marriage bond, and so cast out herself;) or else breaking off in a following act by punishment (both morally and physically) as a man that putteth away his adulterous wife:) In the former sense all the Jews that were unchurched did unchurch themselves and their children; and God only unchurched them in the later sense: And therefore the children of believing Jews (who did not adulterously violate the Covenant) were never unchurched; God casteth out none but those that first cast out themselves.

Answ. If this last speech were true, absolute Reprobation should be an error. But perhaps he means it of casting out by judiciary sentence, and so I grant it true of persons of age. But in the present business, the leaving out infants out of the visible Church was neither by any sinful voluntary dissertion or transgression of God's Law, morally deserving it; nor by any act of judiciary sentence legally, or punitive act executing or physically ejecting: But by a free act of his Sovereignty, altering the Church-state from a more carnal to a more spiritual, without any detriment to believers or their children.

Mr. B. applies his distinctions thus, Let us now review Mr. Ts. arguments. 1. He saith, their Church constitution is taken down; and therefore their membership. To which I answer: 1. By [constitution] is meant either the essential nature, or some ceremonial Accident: And by [taking down] is meant either [by repealing the Law, which takes down the whole • species,] or [by mere punitive execution taking down that individual Church▪] In the first sense of [constitution and taking down] I utterly deny the Antecedent, and may stay long enough I perceive before he prove it. 2. By [their membership] either he means the individual infants of unbelievers, unchurched Jews (which I grant,) or else the whole species of infants (which I deny.) 3. Besides, the argument concludeth not for what he should bring it: That which it should conclude, is [that the merciful gift and ordinance of God, that some infants should be Church-members is repealed:] This is another thing from what he concludeth.

Answ. 1. By [constitution] I neither mean the essential nature, nor some ceremonial accident, but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale. I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley, January 1. 1649. that I used the term of [taking down,] but rather the term [altered,] which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shows to have been the term I used. And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species, nor by mere punitive execution taking down that individual Church; but by a free act of his Sovereignty as Rector or Lord, who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth: As when a Lord or Governor one while takes in • o his house men, and their wives, and children, another while only single men, he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house, nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house, but because it likes him better to have his house only of strong able men, alters the state of his house in respect of the members; so it is in this case. 2. By [their Church membership] I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers, unchurched Jews, nor the whole species of infants; but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members, whether believing or unbelieving. 3. If I conclude (as I did) that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish, I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed. Let's view his answer to my proof.

He proveth, saith Mr. B. that [their Church constitution is altered, because their Church call is altered.] To which I answer, 1. Here is still nothing but the darkness of ambiguity and troubled waters to fish in. As we know not what he means by [constitution] as is said before; so who knows what he meaneth by [their Church call?] Is it meant first of God's Law or Covenant enacting▪ making, and constituting them a Church? 2. And, if so, then is it meant of the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church [I will be to thee a God, and thou shalt be to me a people, Deut. 29.11, 12.] 3. Or is it meant of the lesser additional parts of the Law or Covenant giving them some accidentals of their Church, as the land of Canaan, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice, &c. 4. Or is it meant of God's immediate call from heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into the Covenant ? 5. And if so, whether of Abraham only? or Moses only? or both? or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not? And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand, I know not; except by a call he meaneth circumcising them? And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church? or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made, or entered members ? 7. And if so, whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity? or that which was proper to converted proselyted members? or some call common to both? and what th • t was? When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered, then it may be worth labor to answer him.

Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental, the essential parts of that Covenant or Law, giving them the essence of a Church, [I will be to thee a God, and thou shalt be to me a people, Deut. 29.11, 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise, or that a Church could not be without that promise, or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan, which was as essential to that Covenant as the other, they being both but integral parts, of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole. And for the essence of a Church, which consists in the association, or union of the members, it is not given by a Coven • nt of God, promising what he will be to them, and they to him for the future, (for that assures them only of continuance, doth not give their present essence,) but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others, and unites or incorporates them together, which I call, as usually Divines do, the Church call; agreeably to the Scripture, Rom 9.24, 25, 26. 1 Cor. 1.2, 24. &c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit, and is still the same; or outward, and was, though • gh by various acts of his providence, yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses, not by mere persuasion and begetting of faith, as in the Christian Church, when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church: But the authority and power of Rulers, who did as well by coercive power as by persuasive words, draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth, which was called the congregation or Church of Israel, in which the infants were included, and by virtue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution. This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning, by my instances which he sets down, that the way, means, or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish: For the Christian Church outward call was only according to institution and primitive practice by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian, and by that means persuading persons to receive Christ, and not by any coercive power of Rulers, whereas the Jewish was otherwise. Mr. B. proceeds.

Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive, that Mr. B. might have understood, or rather did understand me well enough, that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call, which he could learn by my speeches, that drive at it. But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions, or whether he thought it best to make show of not understanding, what he could not well answer, he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain. But for what he sai • h, that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased, because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people, he therein shows two mistakes: 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant, as if God could not make a Covenant without it, which is false, the Covenant Gen. 9.9, 10. with Phinehas, Numb. 25.12, 13. with the Rechabites, Jer. • 5.19. being without it. 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers, which implies either the Covenant to be all on • with an offer, or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer, whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant, and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent, as Mr. B. means. But Mr. B. proceeds thus

Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words. 1. What if all this were true? is there the least color for the consequence from hence? It is as good a consequence to say, That when God judged Israel by Deborah a woman, which before was judged by men, that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth, or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered. O • when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings, that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed, and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth? What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer, and then another; first a man, and then a child, and then a woman, doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered? If first a man, and then a child, and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner, or to any employment, or company, doth this change the nature of the company or employment? What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministry, and a Presbytery another, and the people a third, is not the Ministerial work and office still the same? What if a Magistrate convert one man now, and a Minister another, and a woman a third, doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the same? What a powerful argument is here for a man to venture upon to unchurch all the infants in the world? The efficient cause enters not the essence: or if it did, yet not every less principal inferior cause, such as the Messenger or Minister of our call is: If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the Charter of Church membership, then you had said something, else you say nothing to the purpose.

Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence, nature, or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered, and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not, yet what I was to prove, that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts, and consequently of infants being included, is alt • red, might be, and indeed is firmly concluded from thence. For as Alsted. suppl. Chamier. de naturae Eccl. ch. 2. §. 3. The matter of the Church are men called, Mat. 20.16. The form is the call itself, and that is either simple, that is, either extern • l only, or internal only; or conjunct, that is, external and internal together. §. 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit: the outward, in which he calls outwardly by the ministry of the Church. And this is the call of the Church, which as it is the action of God calling, is in God himself; but as it is received of the Church, is it's form : Or as Ames med. Th. l. 1. c. 31. §. 6, 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church, is calling; whence also it receives it's name and definition. For the Church is a company of men called, 1 Cor. 1.24. with 10.32. And Cameron in his praeiect. of the Church, in his definition of the Church, makes it to be a society of men called by the ministry of the word, and saith, called and believers are the same in Scripture. Mr. B. confess. of Faith, pag. 284. The Church is, Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium. If then infants be not called by the word, which is the only way of calling into the Christian visible Church, nor believers, then they are no part of the visible Church Christian, and consequently the Church constitution is altered, and the Law of visible church membership of infants (if there were such a Law) is repealed. And this argument is powerful enough (if there were no more) to venture upon to unchurch (though I like not the expression) all the infants of the world, that is, to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects, doth not invalidate the consequence. For the consequence is not grounded on this only, that the Magistrate called then, and the Minister now; then all together, now here one and there another: but on this, the Magistrate did it then by his authority, though without persuading one after another; but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word, teaching and persuading one after another, as the word takes, and not by any commanding power, or outward force, or legislative, or coercive virtue. And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect; because if none be called but those that receive the word, and none be members of the Church but the called, and infants be uncapable thereof, they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into, as his own words show, as if I had argued only from the different persons, and their different office, and not also from the different way, manner, or sort of call, whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this, that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call; and so I might answer them all negatively, and gra • t what he would have me, and yet my proof stands good. And for what he saith, that the • fficient cause enters not the essence, I find to the contrary in Keckerm. syst. log. l. 1. par. 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents, the notion of distinction, or the difference is taken from the subject, efficient, end, and object. Yet this, if true, were nothing against me, who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church, no nor of the existence, though the Apostles woe • ds▪ Rom. 10.14. speak near to it: But this is that which I hold, no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian, but who is called by the outward preaching of the word, whoever be the Messenger or Minister of the call; and since infants are not so called, they are not members of the visible Church Christian.

Mr. B. adds, 2. I utterly deny that there is anymore truth in the Antecedent then in the consequent▪ God hath not altered the nature of the call in any substantial point, but in mere circumstances.

Answ. What Mr. B. means by the nature of the call, and what points he makes in the call substantial, what near circumstances is not easy to tell, but that God hath so altered the Jewish Ch • rch call, as to exclude infants from the Christian visible Church is so apparent, that I know not how to conceive of the denial of it. but as a fruit of oppositeness without reason. For all the way that John the Baptist, Christ, the Apostles and other teachers took and appointed to be taken for gathering the Christian visible Church, was by preaching the Gospel to all that would hear it, to make them disciples or believers, and so by baptism to join them to the Church. But that the Jewish Church call was different is apparent, in that there were no such teachers sent out to unite them, but that by the authority of the Magistrates, whether household or national they were imbodied. Rightly saith Mr. Hudson vindic. ch. 4. sect. 5. pag. 94. God's method of conveying Church-privileges used in the national Church of the Jews, being in populo Israelitico, must needs differ from the method in populo Catholico. And the same is true of God's call. But what need we any other to show the proper call of the Christian Church visible then Mr. B. himself, in his Saints Everlasting rest, part. 2. ch. 6. sect. 1. Edit. 1. pag. 223, 224. he is so ample, and his words so plain, that I think if there were no more to show his perverse stiffness in this thing it were enough. I will transcribe some passages. Consider in what way Christ spreads his Gospel: to bring men in from the world into his Church from Paganism, Turcism or Judaism to Christianity, he never gave the sword any such Commission; he never levied an army to advance his dominion; nor sent forth his followers as so many Commanders to subdue the Nations to him by force, and spare none that will not become Christians: He will have none but those that voluntarily list themselves under him: He sent out Ministers, and not Magistrates or Commanders to bring in the world. Can he say this of the Jewish Church, and their call? But let's view his wincings against the plain truth, and in some sort against his own light, though perhaps forgotten when he wrote this later book.

It is, saith Mr. B. said, it was then by Magistrates and now by Ministers. I answer ; 1. What was by Magistrates? the first call? or all after? For the first I know not which or when it was, let him that can tell, see that be prove it. I find when Circumcision was first instituted in Abraham's family; But nev • r when their Church-membership begun; shall I dare to think that either Abraham or his family were no Church-members till they were circumcised ? Rom. 4. would confute me.

Answ. Mr. B. saith he answers, but indeed puts questions to me to answer, and those impertinent. For though I could not tell him which was the first call, nor when the church-membership of Abraham's family begah, yet it might be true and proved, that the call of the Jewish Church was by the magistrate. But yet for clearing of the truth, I shall make some answer. 1. That I find God calling Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, Gen. 12.1. Acts 7.3. Isa. 41.2. and sundry times I find Abraham sacrificing to God, and God covenanting with him: Nor would I deny Abraham, Sarah, and those of his family who worshipped the true God, to have been visible church members before circumcision. 2. But yet I find not the whole family of Abraham men women and children made a visible Church, by any act or ri • e which might be termed a Chur • h-call, whereby they were separated from all o • her people and united in a little nation unto God till the appointment of circumcision by God, and the performing of it by Abraham's authority. Now if Mr. B. could not tell which and when the Jewish Church call was, or the Jews children's church-membership began, I think he is very unreasonable to require of me to show a repeal of a thing which he finds not when it began. But there is more of this wild posing sc • ibling to be answered.

2. Saith he, suppose it were true that Abraham's family began then to be a Church; (which will never be proved) yet did not God call them to Circumcision immediately? What is this to a ministerial call ?

Answ. 1. It will never be proved that any whole family, infants, servants, &c. were joined in a little national Church as the Jewish before that time, there being no such covenant, and token of it till then. 2. God did immediately make his covenant with Abraham then and appoint circumcision, But the call of the Church was medlate, the revealing of the covenant, and the administering the token of it, whereby they were separated to be a people to God, being done by Abraham himself as the minister of this call. Yet we have more questions to answer.

3. Are you sure that which Abraham did in it was as a Magistrate? and not as a Prophet? nor Priest? nor Master of family? prove that if you can.

Answ. It is easy to prove that what Abraham did was done not as a Prophet, nor Priest: for then it should have been the work of Prophets and of Priests to have circumcised: but as the Master of the family, or parent, and consequently as the Magistrate of that house. For I count a parent or master of a Family to be a Magistrate in a little compass.

Yet more. 4. What was it that Abraham did? He circumcised them when God had commanded; And was circumcising the call? then the infants in the Wilderness, nor the whole camp almost had no Church call; And then the women had never any Church call.

Answ. Circumcising was part of the call; the declaration of God concerning Abraham's posterity, and his other providences separating the Israelites in the Wilderness and with them the women, as bringing them out of Egypt, bringing them into Covenant, giving them Laws by Moses, &c. which reached to women and males uncircumcised, were also a part of the Church call. Yet again,

What was it then that Abraham did more then now may be done? If you say, he compelled them to be circumcised by violence without their consent, I deny it as a forgery; And if he had done so by those at age, it had been no making them Church-members; for their consent is absolutely necessary thereto. If you say, Abraham by his interest and authority persuasion did win all at age in his family to consent; dare you say, that every Master of a family and Magistrate ought not to do so now? So that I cannot find anymore that Abraham did in this call then may now be done.

Answ. I do not think Abraham did compel them by violence to be circumcised, I think it could hardly have been so done; nor do I think Abraham did it as preachers do now, by reasons and proofs of thei • duty persuading them to it, and leaving it free to them to consent or not; (perhaps the time was too little to do it in, and not unlikely, Ishmael would have then refused, being a scoffer, and then thirteen years old:) But he did it by his command, authority, and interest; which if Magistrates and Masters of Families do use with persuasion to win persons to consent to the Gospel, they do what is commendable, and in some cases their duty: And if they win any, so they make them visible church-members by their preaching to them, not merely by Authority as Abraham, who I think was bound to have circumcised by force if any had not yielded to it, or else to have cut him off by that law which is Gen. 17.14. And I hardly think Mr. B. will yield a Magistrate or Master of a family to do what Abrah • m did, to administer as they call it, the initial seal, whether it be circumcision or baptism. Yet were his conclusion yielded him, neither it nor anything he hath s • id doth at all overthrow my position, which was, that the Christian Church call is by preaching, the Jewish, by the Mag • strates authority, and so different.

Mr. B. goes on thus. And then for Moses what more did he? did he make them members without their consent? No, he sets before them life, and dea • h, blessing and cursing; and bids them choose which they would. Deut. 28, 29, & 30, chapters. Doth he circumcise them? No, not his own Son. Nor the infants forty years, nor the women at all. Doth he command them to obey the commands of God? And should not every King and Magistrate do the like? D • th he persuade them? why, you know he was a Prophet; and if he had not, yet sure he must do it as a King, and as a servant of God. Where then lies this peculiar call by the Magistrate? I think by that time we have search • this to the quick, we shall find the Magistracy less beholding to Mr. T. then was imagined. No wonder that he told the people in his pu • pit that it was Doctrine of a dangerous consequence which I delivered [that Magistrates had their power from Christ the mediate • u • , and not only from God as creator] I doubt by this arguing of his, that he will not allow the Magistrate to call all his people together▪ and propound the Covenant of God to them, and command them to obey God. You find not Moses by prison or fire forcing any man to consent: And if he had, you must have a little further work to prove that it was that which made them a Church, or that the Magistrates may not still do as much as was done herein then.

Answ. Mr. B. herein doth most shamefully wrest my words and meaning: For whereas to show the different call of the Jewish and Christian Church, I alleged only matter of fact, that the one was by the Magistrates authority, the other by Ministers preaching the Gospel, which could not take in infants; Mr. B. wrests my speech as if I had said, Magistrates might not do what Moses then did, and goes about to insinuate, as if the Magistracy were less beholding to me then were meet; and endeavors to increase the suspicion of my lessening his power by my Doctrine in the Pulpit at Bewdley. But of my judgment in this thing, I ha • e given account in the same Pulpit on occasion of the Swearing of the Magistrate there on Rom. 13.4. in these Positions. 1. That all power is committed to Christ to manage as Mediator, Mat. 28.18. Joh. 5.22, 27. 1 Cor. 15.24. And consequently, what they do for or against the Church, it is from Christ enabling or permitting even as Mediator. 2. That Magistrates as well as others are subject to, and are to yield obedience to Christ's commands as he is Mediator, Mat. 17.5. Act. 3.22. 3. That they have power & authority in many things which concern the Church of God, and are bound to use their power for Christ, and his Church, so far as their power extends, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. And in this sense it is that Christ exerciseth some of his Government by Magistracy under him, as also by Parents and Husbands, Ephes. 6.4. But I conceive it a business of much difficulty, to set the right bounds of their power Many things few or none but Papists restrain them in, as the calling of Assemblies, judging of Ecclesiastical persons for civil crimes, ordering the maintenance, and estates of such persons, with many more such things as are to be done circa Ecclesiam, not in Ecclesia : On the other side, few or none but Erastians allow them power in the Church, so as to act as civil Magistrates in that which is by special commission appointed to proper Officers, viz. the preaching of the Gospel, administering the peculiar Rites of the Christian Church, ordination of Elders, government by Ecclesiastic censures, and such like things. The chiefest difficulty hath been, how far they are to use their power for making men profess Christianity, accept of Teachers, punishing of Heretics and excommunicate persons, and such like acts, in which f • r the most part Magistrates by instigation of Popish Priests, Prelates, and others, have much miscarried, and been unhappy instruments of much oppression. Yet for my part I do not deny altogether their power about such things as these, especially if they go no further then what Mr. B. here speaks of, the commanding them to obey God's commands, propounding the Covenant of God to them, restraining pernicious▪ Teachers, and go upon very sure grounds, that they urge nothing but what is certainly God's command, or agreeable to it, nor punish or restrain men for that which is questionable whether it be an error, or pernicious. But this I hold, should a Magistrate as Moses did, by his authority, upon fears or hopes, or other compliance, draw all the people of the Land into a Covenant, to engage themselves and posterity to be Christians, yet this would not make the whole Nation to be a Christian Church, the infants visible church-members, capable of Baptism, since Christ hath not appointed this way, but another, to wit, by preaching the Gospel to call his Church, and the preachers of it to baptize believers so called. 4. I say, that a civil Magistrate is not an Officer of Christ as Mediator, since he hath no new Commission from him as the Apostles, John 20.21. and others, Ephes 4.11. And I conceive to hold the affirmative is of dangerous consequence: it will follow, 1. That a civil Magistrate is bound to produce a further commission from Christ as mediator, besides the appointmen of God as creator, which I neither think Mr. B. hath shown, nor can show. 2. That he who shows commission from Christ as mediator to rule, hath the authority of a civil Magistrate, which puts both Swords into Elders hands. 3. That if a civil Magistrate be an Officer of Christ as mediator, he is in the Church, in which alone Christ as mediator sets Officers; and then he must be a Christian or no Magistrate, yea, a church member, and then he hath rule in the Church, and power to do Ecclesiastical acts. 4. Then dominion is founded in grace, which it seems Mr. B. holds. Praefestin. Mor. sect. 19. as most certain that it is founded in the grace of redemption and universal ; and brings for it plain Scrip. proof, &c. pag. 229. Rom. 14.9. which v. 8. shows plainly to be meant only of those that live and die to him, and are his own peculiar people; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes not such a Lordship as is over enemies, as Devils, and children of perdition by power and force; but such a Lordship as is with property over them as his possession, to whom he hath right as his own, 1 Cor. 6. • 0. such as a wife, an obedient child, or servant. The other Texts prove • ut my first Position. The Reader I presume will pardon this excursion, being necessitated by Mr. Bs. frequent and continued mal • gnant suggestions, tending to make me accounted an adversary to Magistracy. I now return to the point in hand. And in answer to Mr. Bs. demand, I say, the peculiar call of the Church of the Jews by Moses the Magistrate was, in his bringing them out of Egypt, into the Covenant at mount Sinai, settling them under Laws, Priesthod, Government, whereby they were fashioned or established as a national Church. But in the Christian Church, the Apostles and other holy Teachers did gather, and fashion, and establish the Church Christian by preaching of the word, without such a way of authority and power as Moses exercised. It is true he did as we read, Deut. 30.19. but not so as the Apostles, who when the Gospel was refused exercised no power over the refusers; for Moses would suffer none to live in the Commonwealth of Israel who did not own the God of Israel, and if they worshipped an Idol he put them to death.

Mr. B. adds. 5. This argument, if good, would help the Seekers to prove that we have no Church on earth, because not called by Apostles, and so the Church. Constitution taken down, and none by God substituted. Let them that have better eyes then I find out this peculiar church-making call▪ for I cannot.

Answ. My argument, the Church call is altered from the way of making the Jewish Church by Abra • ams and Moses authority, into the persuasive way of begetting faith by Ministers preaching the Gospel, therefore the Church constitution is altered, doth not help Seekers, except it be acknowledged, there is no Church now by Ministers preaching the Gospel, but by mere authority of Magistrates, which was heretofore the objection of Papists against the English churches, b • t refelled by Protestants, Jewel, &c. For I do not appropriate the Church call to the Apostles, or men who could speak that which was merely, wholly, undoubtedly, insite, implantedly the word of God, as Borelius spake; but to the preaching of the Gospel by any Minister of Christ, or other instrument, whereby faith is begotten, and whereby a • one the Christian visible Church and all its members were called, in a different way from the Jewish Church call; which if Mr. B. do not see to have been the Christian peculiar church making call, after his wr • ting in his Saints everl. rest, par. 2. ch. 6. sect. 1. it seems he will not see i • , and then we may apply to him the Proverb, Who so blind as he that will not see ?

Mr. B. passeth on thus. Well, But may it not yet lie in the second point [that they were all taken in to be a Church in one day?] Answ. 1. What day was that? I would Mr. T. could tell me He saith Moses did it: but that's no truer then the rest. For sure they were a Church before Moses time. Did they begin to be a Church in the Wilderness? or did Moses only express the Covenant to them more fully, and cause them oft to renew the Covenant, and so only confirm them a Church? was not the circumcised seed of Abraham a Church in Egypt? and was the uncircumcised Host only in the Wilderness the Church? This is excellent arguing.

Answ. This is excellent answering, not to deny what is objected, but to propound cross interrogatories. Suppose I could not assign the day, is not the thing true? But that Mr. B. may not lose his longing, I tell him it was when Abraham circumcised his house, Gen. 17.23. When Moses made a Covenant with them in Horeb, Deut. 29.1. If I say Moses did it, I say but what the Scripture doth, Deut. 33.4, 5. nor doth it want of true • h if it be no truer then the rest. It is not true Israel had their Church call from Moses, for sure they were a Church before Moses time ; this is Mr. Bs. excellent arguing. As if the seed of Abraham, a fluent being, consisting of a succession of people, might not have one Church call in one age, another in another; one by Abraham, another by Isaac, another by Jacob, another by Moses. Doth not Mr. B. himself, pag. 122. tell us, that Moses did cause them oft to enter and renew the Covenant ? I do not say they began to be a Church in the wilderness, or that the seed of Abraham was not a Church in Egypt, or only in the wilderness : But this I say, the Church call of that people was oft in several ages by the authority of the several Patriarchs and Rulers, as God saw it needful to bring them into Covenant, for better fashioning, establishing, or recovering the Church fallen, but for the most part by the authority of Rulers; or if by a Prophet, in an extraordinary manner, as Elijah's days, 1 Kin. 18. and that not by the way used in the Christian Church, by a daily adding to the Church, and multiplying it by preaching, as Acts 2.47. & 6.1. but by authority calling the whole nation and people together into Covenant at once.

Again saith Mr. B. But Abraham took all his family to be a Church in one day, you will say. I answer. First, It is not proved when they began to be a Church. Repl. Nor needs it. 2 lie. And would not Mr. T. now have a whole family made a Church in a day? Is that his charity?

Repl. Yes, and the whole world, if it seemed good to God: But we find not that he doth so, or gives us any rule or president for us to do so, in the constitution of the visible Church Christian, any otherwise then by preaching the Gospel to them, and baptizing Disciples or believers, Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. And sure my charity must not be my rule about the use of God's Ordinances, but my Lord and Masters appointment.

3 lie. Saith Mr. B. And what of it had been true if the whole Kingdom? either it was with their c • nsent, or without: without their consent they could not be made church-members; for they could not enter into Covenant with G • d.

Answ. If this be true, then no infants are church-members. And though it were true, that none could enter into Covenant with God who is of age without his consent, (which seems to me otherwise,) yet the consent obtained merely by the authority of Masters or Governors, through fear or hopes without teaching, and free acceptance of Christ upon the preaching of the Gosp • l, doth not make a visible member of the Christian Church, however it did in the Jewish. I do not think the Americans forced to be baptized by Spaniards, or other people by the conquests of Charles the Great, and other Christian Princes, afore they knew Christ by teaching made Christians, were such, though there was some consent out of fear of loss of life or liberty if they were not. Mr. B. adds.

And never was any such thing attempted. Even Joshua treads in Moses steps, and bids them choose whether they will serve the Lord or not. Jos. 24.

Answ. Whether Abraham had the free consent of all his house to enter into Covenant with the Lord, or whether he did circumcise some and take them to his Family Church without their consent, is uncertain: However, if Abraham had a slave refractory, which he was loath to lose, yet he must circumcise him against his will, because of the command with the penalty, Gen. 17.12, 13, 14. And in the circumcising the Shechemites what was done and attempted is known. Neither Moses, nor Joshua did so leave it to the Jews liberty, but that they would have cut off from the people by death any that refused to acknowledge God; or that set up an Idol. Asa's Covenant was of putting to death whosever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, 2 Chron. 15.13. Whereas there is no such Law in the Christian Church, that whoever shall not believe in Christ shall be put to death.

Yet further saith Mr. B. And it being with their consent that the nation were church members, may not the like be done now? What, may not any or all the nations of the world be added to the Church, if they will consent, and enter the Covenant ?

Answ. Yes, they may, so many as upon knowledge of Christ do freely consent to receive him in all nations: But infants, natural fools, mad-men in their fits, are neither fit to consent, nor to be members in the Christian visible Church, no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith. Mr. B. adds.

What then is this making them a Church in one day that Mr. T. so cloudily talks of? If he say, it is that then the infants were taken in: I answer, that is to prove the same by the same, or else to argue circularly: As to say, their Church call did take in infants, therefore the taking in of infants was peculiar to their Church call; this begs the question: Or to say, their Church constitution is ceased, because their Church call is ceased; or, their Church call consisting in the taking in of infants is ceased, therefore their Church constitution is ceased; and that Church constitution is ceased, therefore the taking in of infants is ceased. This arguing is like their cause.

Answ. I have sundry times told Mr. B. that the call in one day of the whole nation was by Abraham's authori • y, Gen. 17. and by Moses, Exod. 19 &c. otherwise then in the Christian visible Church, which was by a daily addition of believers out of several families, cities, and nations, by preaching to them the Gospel. And how my arguing is framed without begging the question, or any circle, is before shown. And the [call in one day] I mean • of Abraham's and Moses act, whether the hearts of the whole nation were bowed to consent to take the Lord for their God, or no. I neither envy nor deny the enlarging of the Church by Christ, nor do I think the converting or taking in more or less makes an alteration in the nature of the Church call or constitution ; but a call by preaching the Gospel makes an alteration in the Christian visible Church call and constitution from the Jewish, sufficient to exclude infants from Christian visible church-membership. But Mr. B. clamours thus against me.

And what means Mr. T. to talk of here one and there one? To speak so contemptuously in such disparaging language of the Kingdom and Gospel of Christ? Is not the wonderful success of the Gospel one of our strong arguments for the truth of the Gospel and our Christian Religion? And it seems Mr. T. will give this away to the Pagans, rather then admit infants to be members of the Church.

Answ. I mean to speak as, the Holy Ghost speaks, 1 Cor. 1.26 27, 28, 29. James 2.5, 6. Rev. 5.9. and as by the Histories Ecclesiastical may be made apparent, which rashly Mr. B calls speaking contemptuously in disparaging language of the Kingdom and Gospel of Christ, as he formerly did my denial of infant Baptism accusing of my own children. Nor by my saying is the argument for the truth of the Gospel and Christian Religion a whit infringed. For the force of the argument is not from hence, that whole nations, cities, houses were converted by the Gospel; but that though the persons were contemptible who preached, their Doctrine likely to affright men, without arms▪ against opposition of great ones, there was so great success over the world as to conv •• t so great numbers, though few in comparison of the rest, even in most barbarous countries, from their long accustomed idolatry to embrace a crucified Lord. Yet saith Mr. B.

Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once, and five thousand afterwards? and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe? Acts 2.41. & 4.4. & 21.20. besides all Gentiles? Was it but here one and there one, when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord, both men and women, Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria, Acts 8.

Answ. It was but here one and there one as I meant it. 1. It was not any whole nation or city, and perhaps few whole households, sure I am not one infant in any of the places. For in Acts 2.41. they who were baptized gladly received the word ; and Acts 4.4. they heard the word and believed ; and Acts 21.20. they believed and were zealous of the Law; Acts 9.35. they saw it, and turned to the Lord; Acts 8.2. they believed Philip. 2. These three thousand, five thousand, ten thousands inhabitants might, and li • ely were but one out of one house, and another out of another house: As God had much people in Corinth, Acts 18.10. yet but few households, the Husband a believer, the Wife an unbeliever; the Servant a believer, not the Master, 1 Cor. 7.11, 12, 16, 21. So many miriads might be, yet but here one and there one, considering that Jerusalem, especially at the Feasts, was full of people; an • that the myriads are not restrained to Jerusalem, but • ight be in Judea, or perhaps in remoter parts. It is evident that the number of Christians was not able to match the Persecutors, and that even in Jerusalem : Yea, it is said, Acts 21.30. that all the city was moved against Paul, and the people ran together, all Jerusalem was in an uproar, v. 31. much ado the soldiers had to rescue him from the multitude, v. 35. even at that time when the myriads are said to have been of believing Jews, v. 20. The Texts Acts 9 35. & 8.12. say not as Mr. B. that all that dwelt at Samaria believed, nor all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron both men and women, but those that turned to the Lord, as is shown Sect. 50. before.

Yet more. Let him show me when three thousand Jews were made church-members in a day, if he can, before Christ's time: I say, if he can, let him show it me. Sure ever since Abraham's time (and I doubt not but before too) they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born.

Answ. If I cannot show it Mr. B. gains nothing, my assertion, that the Jewish nation were a Church together in one day by Magistrates authority, the Christian Church was gathered by Apostles a • d others preaching whereby one was made here one day, another there a believer another day, not a na • ion, city, nor always a house together, stands good. But since M. B. will allow me so much favor as to show him anything, me thinks he should not deny that more then three thousand were made church-members in one day, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. And if in the time of Solomon's reign, when Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude 1 Kin. 4.20. three thousand were born in one day, by Mr. Bs. own grant there were three thousand added to the Church in one day.

Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shown you before, that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations: It is a base exposition that shall say he means only, Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations, and no more.

Answ. And what childish vanity, if not worse, he hath shown in his ridiculous including infants to be discipled in that commission, is shown before in the second Part of this Review, Sect. 12. &c. If it be a base exposition which he sets down, it is base dealing if he set it down as mine exposition: who yield that their commission was to disciple all of a nation who could be discipled, though it is true that they could not do it to a whole nation in a day as Moses did; and in the event they discipled but here one and there one in a house for the most part.

Yet more saith Mr. B. And what means that in Revel. 11.15. Are not these Kingdoms added to the Church as well as Israel?

I answer, That it means not as Mr. B. imagines, that the whole people of Kingdoms shall become Christ's visible Church, but the rule or dominion of them shall be his, as the close of the v. and ch 12.10. show, which makes nothing for Mr. B. as will appear by ex • minining his frivolous arguing, ch. 13.

Yet again saith Mr. B. like a brave Goliath, And are not all professors of Christianity in England, as truly in the Church as all in Israel were? I challen • e any to answer me herein, and undertake to make it good against them (as far as will stand with modesty to challenge) whatsoever any Separatist (commonly called Independents) or Anabaptists may say to the contrary; (for I have pretty well tried the strength of their arguing in this.)

And I have pretty well tried Mr. Bs. strength in disputes, and find it small though his words be big. I do not answer to the name of a Separatist or Anabaptist, they are Mr. Bs. abusive language of me. Let Independent Paedobaptists answer it as they please. I th • nk if they will baptize infan • s from the rule of circumcision and the Jewish-Church-state, they must assert a national Church, admit all that avo • ch themselves Christians to breaking of Bread, and their infant males to Baptism. And I conceive Presbyterians by the grounds they maintain Paedobaptism are debarred from keeping the ignorant and scandalous from the Lord's Supper; and though I challenge not as Mr. B. yet presume I shall make both good in their season. As for the present question of Mr. B. I grant it, and then I hope we shall not fight about it. Yet I t • ll Mr. B. I do not take all for professors of Christ • anity whom perhaps Mr. B. doth, nor do I think Mr. B. can find me one professor of Christianity among all the infants in England.

Yet a little further, s • ith Mr. B. Either Mr. T. by [Church call] means that which was the means of entering infants, or men at a • e or somewhat common to both. The Jews did all enter into the Church as members in infancy, even they that deferred Circumcision till forty years old, and the women that were not circumcised. And what call had these infants that cannot understand a call?

Answ. The Church call of the Jewish nation or family of • braham, was by his authority, in a way common to men of age and infants: Abraham and his house were by circumcision and declaring God's Covenant formed into a visible Church, and accordingly all that were born of Abraham, and all that were taken into his house while they continued in that Family or Nation, were of that Church. And this way of Church call, by bringing into the bond of the Covenant the whole Nation, infants, servants, men and women together, was by the authority of Moses renewed at mount Horeb, and in the land of Moab, Deut. 29.1. though circumcision were deferred for a time. And this call was of the infants, though not by themselves apart, yet conjunctly with the whole Nation, the chief representing the rest, Exod. 19.7. Deut. 29.10. and among them the infants, who might as well understand a call as a Covenant, into which Mr. B. contends they did enter.

Mr. B. adds.

Answ. When that time was that Mr. B. made this request to me, and what imperfect answer it was which I gave him, I do not well remember: I guess it was when I had conference with him alone, Jan. 25. 1649. in his chamber, when he drew me to a conference with him, pretendi • g friendliness; but (as the event shown, having Jan. 15. before, when I suspe •• ed no such dealing, written his abusive Epistle before his Saints everlasting rest, in which he falsely accused me and proclaimed his driving me to absurdities in the Dispute, Jan. 1.) drew from me what he could • or his advantage, and then printed it in this Book, without my revising my answers, or his acquainting me with his printing them, or rightly according as they were printing them, as may be perceived by this Review ; and mocking me with this fraudulent trick, when I expected according to his promise to see his arguments written from some of his own or my auditors to whom he would communicate them. But leaving him to the Lord, I shall now give a plain answer to his demand. Proselytes were of two sorts, 1. Of the gate, as Cornelius, ow • ing the God of Israel, but not joining to the Church and policy of Israel. These were not of the Jewish Church visible, though they were of the Church invisible of true believers, and of the Church visible universal of professors of the true God: For they were accounted unclean, and shunned by the Jews, Acts 10.28. & 11.2, 3. Their calling I conceive was as ours is, by the word of God made known to them; nor do I find that infants were any part of the Church of them, whether domestic as in Cornelius house, Acts 10.2. or congregational, of which I find not an instance, nor of any rites or discipline they had. 2. Of righteousness, who were made such partly by persuasion as Mat. 23.15. and so far their call agrees with our call, and the other sort of Proselytes, partly by entering them into the Jewish Church, by Baptism, Circumcision, and an Offering, and with them wives and children; and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law, and acting according to rules of their own. In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shown in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond. Now though they were joined to the Jewish Church one after-another, and the infants of the Jews as they were born; yet the Jewish-Church, whether at the first erection, or after estab • ishing, were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which thing I was to demonstrate.

Mr. B. goes on thus. But yet one other argument Mr. T. ha • h to prove the Church constitution altered, and consequently infants now cast out, or their church membership repealed: And that is this; They were to go up three times a year to the Temple; they had their Sanhedrin, and High Priest: Now he appealeth to all, whether these be not altered: And therefore the Church constitution must needs be altered; and so infants put out.

Answ. My argument is this, If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered, then infants church membership is altered: But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered, Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logic, Where there is the same reason of things, there is to be the same judgment. De paribus idem est judicium. The minor is proved thus. The High Priest, Sanhedrim, repair to their Feasts, had the same reason with infants visible church membership: But they are altered, Ergo. The major is proved thus. Infants church membership was nowhere but in the Jewish Church, we read of it nowhere else, nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation, which God had made his Church; they were visible church members upon no profession of their own, nor from any general determination of God, Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any country whatsoever, there being no such Law; but merely from hence, because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come, and so a National Church till then. And for the same reason he would have one High Priest, Temple, repair thither at solemn Feasts, a Sanhedrim, their genealogies kept, their possessions by lot, &c. But all these are altered now, the Church is not National, no one High Priest, Temple, Sanhedrim, &c. therefore neither infants visible Church membership, which had the same reason and no other. What saith Mr. B.

Alas, miserable Cause that hath no better arguments! are any of these essential to their Church constitution? How came there to be so strict a conjunction between Priesthood, Temple, Sanhedrim, &c. as that the Church must needs fall when they fall? may it not be a Church without these?

Answ. Alas miserable Cause that hath no better answers! Is infants church-membership essential to Church constitution? How came there to be so strict a conjunction between the Church and their membership, as that the Church must needs fall when they fall? may • it not be a Church without these? If the Temple, &c. might be altered, and and were, because no • essential to the Church; infants Church membership did cease too, which was no more essential then those, and which hath been proved to have the same reason with these, to wit, God's making his Church National out of which the Messiah was to come. Hitherto nothing is indeed answered, and what is said is retorted. The rest is according to Mr. Bs. vein of frivolous putting impertinent questions to me.

I would entreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him, considerately to answer me to these. 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple, or Sanhedrim, or High Priest, or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses? Ans. I think not: there was no time they were a Church, but they had a Priest, an Altar, Sacrifices, distinction of clean and unclean beasts, &c. Were they not a Church in Egypt, and in the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Ans. They were. 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church? Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church, or constitution of the Church? Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church, or overthrow the old, why should the taking of them away overthrow it? Ans. Who saith it doth? 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants, why not after Moses time? Ans. Who denies it? Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple, or Sanhedrin, or High Priest, &c. Why may they not be so when these are down? why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them? Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time, yet they were erected upon the same foundation, the Jewish National Church, as the walls fall with the roof, though they rise not together, because they rest on the same foundation. 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down, then men are cast out, and women too, as well as children. Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down, but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered; and I grant it, that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church, are left out (I will not say cast out, for they were never in) of the Christian visible Church as well as children. If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew, I answer, What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members of the Church, and then set it up anew? Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament, but that (if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church ) Christ repealed it, when neither John the Baptist, nor Christ, nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism, without his personal faith and repentance?

Mr. B. saith. I will wast no more time in confuting such slender arguments, but shall willingly leave it to the judgment of any understanding unbiased man, whether Mr. T. have well proved that God repealed his Ordinance, and revoked his merciful gift, that some infants shall be Church members.

Answ. It is my burden that I must waste more time in refuting such empty scriblings as these, containing questions, and those not touching the argument, instead of answers; and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities, and else-where, who are understanding unbiased men (if there be any) yea to any that have studied Logic, to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance, after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section, and answered his Letters to me, to which I hasten.

SECT. LII. It is proved, that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times, nor are now.

1. I Thus argue, If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times, then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before, must needs be repealed. But the antecedent is true, Ergo the consequent. The consequent of the major I think will not be denied: For supposing there were infants even of Christians, and an Ord • nance before, that the infants of the godly should be visible church members, and yet no part or members; then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance, if there were such a one. Now that the antecedent is true, I prove thus. If in all the days of Christ on earth, and the Apostles, no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian, then not in the primitive times: For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further, though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further. But the antecedent is true, Ergo.

That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the days of Christ and his Apostles on earth, is proved by these arguments.

1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptized. This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof, &c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water, pag▪ 342. As the whole Church is one body, and hath one Lord, and one faith, so it hath one common baptism. And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13▪ Eph. 5.25, 26. Eph. 4.5. out of which this proposition may be proved. But no infants were to be baptized. This is proved at large in the 2d. part of this Review Sect. 5, &c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church.

2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script. &c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13. is the visible Church. pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body &c. pag 39. What is the Church? Is it not the body of Christ? The same he confirms pag. 60.318. from 1 Cor. 12.13. which he proves to be meant of the visible Church, and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24. Ephes. 1.22, 23. that the Church is the body of Christ, and so the visible Church is his visible body. But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13. all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit, namely in the cup of the L • rds supper. Diodati annot. in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi & caenae dominicae piscat. analys. 1 Cor. 12.13. Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi &caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur. Dicson expos. Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13. ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus & idem etiam esse intelligatur, Beza annot. in 1 Cor. 12.13. Calicem quoq • e Domini in hanc spem bibimus. Grot. annot. in locum. But no infant was made to drink into one spirit, for none of them did drink the cup in the Lord's supper, Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17. All that were one body and one bread, did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread, if they did they must do so still &▪ be admitted to the Lord's supper, Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5. The whole Church is one body, and hath one Lord and one faith. Mr. B. plain Script. &c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith, Ergo.

3. They were no members of the visible Church, who were left out of the number of the whole Church, all the believers, the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church, or mention of the whole Church, the number of believers or disciples in the New Testament. But infants are left out of that number in all places in the New Testament, Ergo. The major is evident of itself. For as we know who was in the church by their mention, so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages, which make an enumeration or reckoning of all, there being no other way to know who were in or out; and if this be not true, the speeches are false which mention all, the whole, the multitude, as the full number if they were not so. The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned. Acts 1.15. Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples, and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty ▪ and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women, Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren, and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication. Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible. Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith, the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time; though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter. For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christ's preaching and pains bestowed in that city? Let but Joh. 2.23. & 3.2. & 4.1. & Mar. 3.8. & Joh. 7.31. & 8.30. & 11.28, 45. & 12.19, 42. and divers other places be well weighed, and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds, much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all, who were all Galileans, and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all. The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters, pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me, considering the narration all along • he chapter, that v. 4, 6. they are said to come together, go to mount Olivet, and then to return to Jerusalem, and their action noted with special notice of some, v. 13, 14. and then next, v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples, that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration only of men of note, but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem, me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean, Mark 14.70. doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ; Christ's preaching most in Galilee, his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see him, Matth. 26.32. Mark 16.7. the disciples shut • in • the doors and assembling at evening for fear of the Jews, Joh. 20.19. do show that most of • he disciples were Galileans, few of Jerusalem; specially when all the disciples forsook Christ and fled, Matth. 26.56. the shepherd being smitten and the sheep scattered, v. 31. H • wever the enumeration being of disciples, and the women being reckoned with them, and not their children, nor the actions of prayer, &c. such as are to be ascribed • o infants, it is evident that infants were not then countted among the disciples, and consequen • lie not counted for visible members of the Christian Church.

Acts 2.1. They are said to be all with one accord in one place. The Assembly ubi suprà alledgeth reasons why they all should be meant of the Apostles only, but not cogent. For 1. the narration doth not anymore limit the words Act. 2.1. by Acts 1.26 then by v. 15. 2. not only the Apostles, but o • hers were filled with the holy Ghost women as well as men, v. 17. Acts 4.31. & 6.5. 3. though they were Galilee • ns that spake v. 7. yet it proves not the [all] v. 1. to be Galileans. 4. the mention is of the Apostles v. 14, 37, 42. not to show that it was a meeting of the Apost • es only, but because they were the leaders and chief actors in that Church.

And that the meeting was of the whole Church at Jerusalem then, is proved from v. 41. th • s, The meeting was of them to whom the three thousand souls were added; But they were added to the Church v. 47. not only to the Apostles, or teachers. For then the sense should be, that that 3000 should be added to the teachers, and so many more teachers added: whereas they are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine v. 42. by their profession of it, the Apostles teaching an • not the • . And hence I gather, that not one infant was reckoned to the Church, because the [ all] v. 1. are said to be together 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with one accord, or one mind and consent, which is not to be said of infants.

From Acts 2.41. I further argue, The Church did then consist of such persons only as were of like sort with those who were added to it, which must be granted except it be said, the added and those who were added were of different sorts. But of those who were added there was no one infant. This is proved from the words v. 42, 43. that they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers, and fear came upon every soul, v. 41. they gladly received the word, which cannot be said of infants; therefore no infant was reckoned then a • a part or member of the visible Church Christian.

Again v. • 4. the whole Church is meant by all that believed, who are said to be together▪ to have all things • common, sold and imparted their possessions, continued with one accord in the temple, brake bread from house to house, eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praised God, had • avour with all the people, v. 45, 46, 47. which cannot be said of infants, therefore no infants were then reckoned as parts or members of the Christian visible Church.

Again Acts 4.4. it is said, many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand. That this is an enumeration of the whole Church then at Jerusalem, is more probable the • that it is an enumeration only of the newly added; however the addition being of the same sort of persons with those to whom they were added, and no one infant reckoned to the Church, but all men, that heard the word and believed, it is clear that in the number of the Christians or disciples infants were not reckoned, and consequently no visible church members then.

V. 23, 24. Peter and John are said to go to their own company, and to report to them the speech of the chief Priests and Elders, and then upon hearing they lift up their voice with one accord to God, v. 31. to pray, to be assembled together, to be filled with the holy Ghost, to speak the word God with boldness ; and the Church is called v. • 2. the multitude of them who believed, to be of one heart and one soul. All which show, that the Church consisted of a company of praying people, of a multitude of believers, which is not to be said of infants, therefore they were no visible church members then.

Acts 5.11. it is said, And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things. Here the whole church is mentioned as contradistinguished fr • m the many that heard these things. But no one infant was a member of the Church, since none was capable of the great fear that came upon all the Church from the notice of Ananias and Sapphira's death, therefore they were not then church-members.

V. 13▪ 14. They who were magnified by the people, who were joined to the Lord, who were of the same sort with believers, who were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, were not infants: But such were the Church then, therefore it did not consist of infants then.

Acts 6.1. The Church is expressed by the number of Disciples, by the multitude of Disciples, v. 2. the whole multitude, v. 5. the number of the Disciples obedient to the faith, v. 7. But none of these were infants, as their conventing, the speeches to them, and other acts show; therefore infants then were not reckoned Christian visible church-members.

Acts 8.1. The Church at Jerusalem are said to be all scattered abroad except the Apostles, v. 3. to consist of men and women hailed to prison, which is not to be conceived of infants, therefore they were not then reckoned as visible church members.

Acts 15.22. The whole Church is said to send chosen men of their own company. But this doth not agree to infants, therefore infants were not reckoned as part of the whole Church.

1 Cor. 14.23. The whole Church is supposed to come togeter into one place. But this is not to be said of infants, they were no part of the company that met, they were not capable of the end and actions of the meeting, therefore they were no part of the whole Church, The same may be said of all other like places.

4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible, to whom the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church did not agree. But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to infants. Ergo. The major is of itself evident, as in like manner this is a plain truth, that they are no soldiers to whom what is said of the whole Army doth not agree. The minor is proved from many places of Scripture. Matth. 16.18. Christ saith he will build his Church on this Rock, this is meant of the whole Church, and the building is meant of building by preaching, Ephes. 2.20. & 4.11, 12. But infants are not built by preaching, therefore they are not parts of the Church visible.

1 Cor. 1▪ 2 The Church is of them who are called to be Saints which is by preaching the Gospel, v. 23, 24. But infants are not so called, Ergo, they are not of the visible Church Christian.

Acts 2.41, 47. & 5.14. They who were added to the Church did all hear the word and believe : But infants did not so, therefore they were not added to the Church, and consequently were not visible church-members.

They were not parts of the Church who did not come together, were not gathered together ; for all the Church did come together with one accord in Solomon's Porch, Acts 5.11, 12. were gathered together by the Apostle, Acts 14.27. But infants were no part of them, they were not with one accord any of those to whom the Apostle told what God had done with them, therefore they were not part of the visible Church.

They were no part of the Church of God, who were none of the flock of God to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers over them by the Holy Ghost to feed them. For all these things are attributed to all the flock or Church of God at Ephesus, Acts 10.28. But infants were none of the flock to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers by the Holy Ghost to feed them, Nurses were to attend and feed infants, not teaching and ruling Elders, whose work was in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. therefore infants were none of the flock or Church of God visible at that time.

They were no part of the Church of God, who were not in duty to be sanctified by the Word. For the whole Church was in duty to be sanctified by the Word, as Mr. B. plain Script. &c. pag. 342. gathers from Ephs. 5.26. concerning Baptism. But no infant is in duty to be so sanctified, it were a ridiculous thing to t • e Preachers to sanctify or wash infants by preaching the Word to them, therefore they were no part of the Church. The Churches had rest, and were edified; walked, were multiplied, Acts 9.31. Acts 12.5. Prayer was made of the Church unto God for Peter. The Church at Jerusalem, Acts 11, 22. is said to hear tidings, to send Barnabas, who with Paul assemble with the Church, v. 26. fit persons to convene, Acts 21.22. to receive orders, 1 Cor. 16.1. With many more such attributes, which neither are, nor can ordinarily be said of infants, no nor any attribute in all the New Testament, which is said of the visible Church Christian is said of infants, therefore they were not accounted visible members in the first Christian Churches, nor are rightly now so taken.

5. They who were not reckoned as Christ's Disciples, were not visible church-members; For as Mr. B. rightly saith, plain Script▪ &c. All church-members are Christ's Disciples. But infants are nowhere reckoned as Christ's Disciples. This is proved, 1. from the places in all the Acts of the Apostles, and elsewhere, where there is mention of Christ's Disciples, there are such things declared of them as do exclude infants from the number of them. I omit Acts 1.15. & 6.1, 2, 5, 7. before mentioned. Acts 11.26, 29. It is said that Barnabas and Saul a whole year assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people, and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch : And upon the prediction of a dearth it is said, Then the Disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea, which they also did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. From whence this is apparent, that the Church, the Disciples, the Christians were then Synonyma, or terms importing the same p •• sons, so that he who was not a Disciple was not of the Church, nor a Christian. But no infant was then reckoned as a Disciple. This is proved from what is said of every Disciple, v. 29. they determined to send and did send, which none will say infants did. Ergo, infants were not then reckoned among Disciples, Christians, or members of the visible Church Christian.

Acts 14.20, 21, 22. it is said, that the Disciples stood round about Paul, that he and Barnabas taught many, or made many Disciples, and that they confirmed the souls of the Disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith. From whence it is manifest, that the Disciples then were such as stood round about Paul, that they were taught, or made Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospel, that they were in the faith, capable of confirmation, and exhortation. But such were not infants, Ergo, they were not then reckoned as Disciples, and consequen •• y not church-members. Acts 8.3. made havoc of the Church. Acts 9.1. against the Disciples, v. 13. the Saints at Jerusalem, v. 19. the Disciples at Damascus, v. 25. the Disciples, v. 26. joining to the Church is joining to the Disciples, v. 35. the Brethren, v. 31. the Churches, v. 38. the Disciples heard, v. 41. called the Saints. Acts. 15.1. it is said they taught the Brethren, v. 3. being brought on their way by the Church, they caused great joy unto all the Brethren ; v. 4. they were received of the Church. v. 10. the Disciples are they whose hearts were purified by faith; the whole Church v. 22. are the Brethren, v. 23. who send greeting to the Brethren. v. 30. they were the multitude gathered together, v. 32. they exhorted the Brethren, v. 33. were let go in peace from the Brethren, v. 36. let us visit our Brethren, v. 40. recommended by the Brethren. v. 41. confirming the Churches. Acts 10.2. well reported of by the Brethren, v. 5. And so were the Churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily, v. 40. and when they had seen the Brethren they comforted them. Acts 17.10, 14. the Brethren sent away Paul. Which passages do show, that these terms were then of the same extent, and synonymous, the Church, the Disciples, the Brethren, the Believers, the Saints: But infants were none of the Church, the Disciples, the Brethren, the Believers, the Saints as all the passages where they are mentioned show, therefore infants were not then visible church members

Acts 18.18. Paul took leave of the Brethren, v. 22. he saluted the Church, v. 23. strengthened all the Disciples, which strengthening was by teaching and exhorting, as Acts 14. • 2. shows: Which infants were not capable of, therefore they were not Disciples▪ V. 27. the Brethren wrote, exhorting the Disciples to receive Apollos▪ who helped them much who believed through grace. Acts 19.1, 2. Paul finds certain Disciples who were Believers, v. 9. separates the Disciples, v. 30. the Disciples would not suffer Paul to enter in unto the people. Acts 20.7. Upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them at Troas. Which shows plainly, that the Disciples did use to break bread on the first day of the week, and that those who were Disciples did break bread; which cannot be said of infants, therefore they were not Disciples, and consequently not visible church-members.

2. The same is proved by those arguments which are in the second Part of this Review, sect. 10. to prove infants not Disciples appointed to be baptized, Matth. 28.19. and by the answers to the allegat • ons of Mr. Cotton, Mr. B. and others, Sect. 11, 12, &c. to prove them Disciples.

6. If in the distributions of the members of the Church then, infants are not comprehended, then infants were not visible church-members, this must needs be granted, or exception must be taken to those distributions. But in the distributions of the Church, where all sorts of members are expressed, infants are not comprehended; Ergo. The minor is proved from the distributions according to the sex, Acts 5.14. & 8.12. men and women, among whom was no infant, for in the former place they are termed Believers, in the latter they are said to believe Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ ; which is not to be said of infants. 1 Cor. 12.13. they are distributed into Jews or Gentiles or Greeks, bond or free, but none an infant, as is proved before, in that all were baptized, and did drink the Lord's cup. The like is Gal. 3.28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus : and that is by faith, v. 16. and therefore no infant meant. Col. 3.11. Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian bond nor free; but Christ is all and in all, that is by faith, which is not to be said of infants.

To which I may add, that in Tertullian's time the children of believers were not accounted actually members of the visible Church, because he terms them in his book De anima ▪ c. 39. Designatos sanctitatis, intended to be holy; that is, to be bred up to profess the faith, and so to be baptized. Which is the more apparent, in that Jerome expresseth the same as from Tertullian's bo • k de monogamia, in his Epistle to Paulinus, tom. 3 d. edit. Basil. That the children of believers are termed holy, because they are as it were Candidates of the faith. And Erasmus in his Scholie on that Epistle saith, Therefore they which are born of Christians, are called holy also before Baptism, because they do as it were seek and expect Baptism. Which shows they were not counted actually church-members, but such as were designed to be believers, and so as it were seekers for Faith and Baptism, and consequently church-members only in expectation.

2. I argue from the common received definitions of the visible Church. Artic. 19. of the Church of England, The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men. In the answer of the Assembly to the reasons of the seven dissenting br • thren, p 48. of the Edition 1644. the first praecognitum is this; The whole Church of Christ is but one, made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the word, to profess the saith of Christ, unto the unity thereof: From which union there ariseth unto everyone such a relation unto, and dependence upon the catholic Church, as parts have to the whole. Dr. John Reynold 2 d. concl. The Church of Christ betokeneth a company called out from among the multitude of other men, to life everlasting through faith in Christ Jesus. Ball, trial of Separ. pag. 296. ch. 13. The Church is a society of the faithful. Hudson, vindic. c. 1. p. 12. The universal Church is the whole company of visible believers throughout the whole world. ch. 6. sect. 3, 127. The Church visible is called entitive, not because of the inward grace, which is essential to an invisible member; but from the reception and embracing the Christian catholic faith, which is essential to a visible believer. Mr. B. himself, plain Script. &c. part 1. ch. 26. The common definition of the Church, affirmeth them to be a people called 〈◊〉 of the world. Hence I argue, All that are of the visible Church Christian are faithful, called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the faith of Christ, visible believers receiving and embracing the Christian catholic faith. This is proved from the definitions of the Church▪ and positions received. And it is clear in reason, the Church being an aggregate, as a flock of sheep, a heap of stones; as it follows therefore every part of the flock is a sheep, every part of the heap a stone, so every part of the Church a believer. But no infant is such. Ergo. In this very manner doth Guliel. Apollonii. considerat. controv. cap. 1. pag. 8. argue. Thus almost all the famous reformed Divines do affir • the matter of a visible Church to be men outwardly called, professing the faith of Christ. For they define it a company of men called out by an outward calling, or preaching of the word, and communication of Sacraments, to the worship of God, and to celebrate Ecclesiastical society among themselves.

To this Mr. M. in his Defense, part 3. sect 3. pag. 113. saith.

Answ. Mr. M. should have shown who, and in what words of their definitions Protestant Writers include the infants of professors. That some of them, especially of late, have asserted infants of believers to be a part of the visible Church, I grant: But I think Mr. M. cannot make it good, that the Elder Protestant Writers did include them in their definitions of the visible Church. I have produced some of the later, who have so framed their definitions as that infants must be excluded. And if any do include them, they err from the Scripture, which never accounted them visible Christian Church members, as is proved before. And Sect. 51. of this Part of the Review doth sufficiently show the Christian Church visible to have another call and constitution from the Jewish, and that no person is a member of the Christian Church visible by natural generation of a believer, but by profession of faith. Wherefore Mr. M. saith.

Answ. That circumcision was a profession of the Christian faith either explicit in Elder proselytes, or implicit in infants circumcision, doth not appear. The Apostles speech Gal. 5.2, 3. and the tenet of the Jewish doctors Acts 15.1, 5. is to the contrary. Baptism after a verbal profession of faith by the baptized being his act is a real, though implicit profession of the Christian faith, it being used by the baptized to declare his putting on Christ, and so a sign of his assent to his verbal profession. But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit, there being no act done by them tending to make any show of faith, which they neither understand, nor take • o be true upon the trust of their teachers, as Papists do in their implicit faith (which yet we d • ny to be Christian faith) but are every way passive, both in respect of the act of the baptisers, and the reason and end of it, they neither do anything towards their baptism, nor understand anything of it. Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism, yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the Christian church, no not according to the definition of Protestant writers, who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith, do mean more then an implicit profession, to wit, an intelligent and free profession; and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards, forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it, though there be more implicit profession of the faith by them, then is or can be by an infant.

3. I argue. They are no visible members of the Christian church, to whom no note whereby a visible Christian church, or church-membership is discernible doth agree. For that which is visible, is discernible to the understanding, by some sensible note or sign by which it is known: But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church, or church-member is discernible doth agree, Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by showing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants. The right notes of the Christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith, the preaching and hearing of the Word, administration and communion in the Sacramen • s, joining in Prayer, discipline, &c. with believers. Hudson. vindic. pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants. Not profession of of the whole Christian faith, For they neither understand nor show by anything they do that they assent to the Christian faith. Not the preaching or hearing of the Word: For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word. I mean as it is speech or significative language, though they may hear it as a sound, much less as yielding assent to it, which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member. Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments: None will say they administer, nor though they should be baptized in water by a Minister, or eat bread or drink wine at the Lord's supper, can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament. For he only hath communion in a Sacrament, who useth it as a sign of that for which it is appointed, and this use only is a note of a visible church-member, otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament, or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member. See Mr. B. himself correct. sect. 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lord's Supper as a sign engaging to Christ, with acknowledgement or remembrance of him, therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments, no not in baptism, nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership. Nor do they join in prayer▪ discipline, or any part of Christian worship or service, which might show they own Christ as their Lord, and therefore they are not discernible to be of the visible Church Christian by any right note.

2. By showing that the notes whereby they are conceived to be discernible as visible Church-members, are not notes of their visible church-membership. Two notes are usually alleged, the one the covenant of God, the other the parents profession of faith; neither show them visible Christian church-members, nor both together. Not the covenant or promise of God: For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers child, much less to every professor of Faith's child saving grace, or visible church-membership, and a promise to save indefinitely, not expressing definitely who, is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernible to be the person to whom it belongs. Besides, if there were such a promise to every child of a believer, yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy, it would not prove they were actually visible church members, but only that in the future they should be. Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership. For whether it be a note of itself, or conjunctly with the covenant, it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child, and if so, then it is a note of his child's visible church-membership at twenty years of age, though he should be then a professed Infidel, as well as a day old, a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb, as well as a child born, which are absurd. Other reason then this I know not. But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernible to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession, but to the contrary. To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part. 3 sect. 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defense, and therefore I see not but it stands good.

4. I argue. They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member, are not visible Christian church-members. This proposition is most sure according to Logic rules, take away the form, the thing formed is not; if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not; Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri. praec. doct. Log tract. 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member, infants have not: Ergo. The minor is proved thus. They which have not the outward profession of Faith within, have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member. For profession of Faith, is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member, as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines. Ames Marrow of Divinity, first book c. 31. §. 11. Faith is the form of the Church. §. 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church, according to its accidental and outward form. §. 27. The accidental form is visible, because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith, which may easily be perceived by sense. c. 32. §. 7. It is a society of believers, for that same thing in profession constitutes the vis • ble Church, which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church, that is Faith. Ball trial of separate▪ c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible; and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible. Norton answer to Apollon. • 1. prop. 2. pag. 10 An unmoved position. That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible, which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church, that is faith▪ Hudson. vindic. ch. 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian, and a member of Christ's visible Kingdom, because • he form (viz. visible believing) common to all Christians and all members is found in him. And this may be proved out of Scripture, which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of fa • th, in respect of which they are termed believers, 1 Tim. 2.12. Acts 4.32. & 5.14 &c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture, or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another, of the parent, church, &c. It is a mere novel device of Papists, who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds; and Paedobaptists, who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties, the Church, their owners, the nation believing, their parents next or remote faith. Which is a gross and absurd conceit. For that in profession alone makes visible believers, which makes in reality true believers. But that's a man's own faith Hab. 2.4. not another's; therefore a man's own and not another's profession of faith makes a visible believer. Again, the form denominating must be inherent, or in or belong to the person denominated, so as that there is some union of i • to him, but there is no inherence, or union of another's faith to an infant, Ergo. Naturally there is none, nor legally; if there be, • et him that can, show by what grant of God it is. Infants may have civil right to their parents goods, a natural interest in their mothers milk, parents, and masters may have power over the bodies, labor, &c. of their children and servants, they have no power to convey Faith, or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent. But this conceit is so ridiculous, that I need spend no more words to refute i • I subsume. Infants make no profession of faith, they are only passive, and do nothing by which they may be denominated visible Christi • ns as experience shows, yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety, and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry, and as they are able oppose it, Ergo.

To this faith Mr. M. I answer, even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old, who yet in their days were visible members.

Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members, though they were visible members of the Jewish Church: But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can, that the same thing, to wit natural birth, and Jewish descent and dwelling, which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church, doth denominate a Christian visible church-member. And till he do this, the force of the argument remains.

5. I argue. If infants be visible Christian church-members, then there may be a visible Church Christian, which consists only of infants of believers; for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive, though not organical. But this is absurd. Ergo, Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member.

To this Mr. M, saith, I answer, no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church; it's possible, but very improbable, that all the men and women should die, and leave only infants behind them.

Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian: For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abraham's, or Israel's house, which they might be, though but infants. But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot do, and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may be only of infants of believers, whereof not one is a believer by profess • ion, not so of ths Jewish church. 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose, though it never were or should be so in the event, since the absurdity follows upon that grant, as well as the actual event.

6. I argue. If infants be visible Christian church-members, then there is some cause thereof. But there is none, Ergo. The major is of itself evident, everything that is hath some cause by which it is. The minor is proved thus. If infants be visible-Christian church members, by some cause, then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some only. But of neither, Ergo. I presume it will be said of some, since they account it a privilege of believers infants. But to the conttary, there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members. Mr. B. plain Script. &c. part. 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause (not so much as instrumental properly) of the childes holiness, by which he means visible Church-membership, but he makes it a condition (which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non) of children's holiness. I answer, saith he, fully: If this be the question, what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness? It is the actual believing of the parent: For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings, it is the same that hath the promise of this privilege to infants: Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing, or of actual faith, it were vain to say, that the promise to our infants is one • y to faith in the habit: The habit is for the act, yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act: therefore it is both faith in the habit (or potentia proxima) and in the act that is necessary. But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed: either in actu procreandi, vel tempore nativitatis, vel baptismatis. It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer, and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do: To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly (or else he hath no habit of faith) and hath not fallen away from Christ, but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer, and then the said act will follow in season; and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act, and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth. It is not therefore the mere bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift, but the former act and present disposition. Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants. The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Church membership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship itself: but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the only cause efficient. Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entered with our first parents presently upon the fall. Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members & Disciples, and subjects of Christ, because they are children of the promise; God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithful and their seed. Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdom, and therefore infants must be part of Christ's Kingdom. Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith. So that Mr. Bs. opinion is, Christ by his law of nature, or nations, or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace, the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith, formerly and present disposition, beyond the mere bare profession of faith, is properly the only cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian.

Against this I argue. 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed, nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the child shall be a visible Christian churchmember, nor any such law either of nature or nations, or positive, which makes the child without his consent a visible Christian church-member, then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian church membership is false. But the antecedent is true, ergo, the consequent. The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it, in that which follows.

2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional; the absolute, according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant, and it is granted to be only to the elect, in his Appendix answer to the 8th▪ and 9th. object. and elsewhere, and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person, not visible church membership upon the faith of another. The conditional covenant is of justification, salvation on condition of faith, and this p • omiseth not visible Church membership, but saving graces, it promiseth unto all upon condition, and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible church membership Christian is not conferred as a privilege peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith.

3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God, yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership; because God may be their God, and yet they not be visible Church members, as he is the God of Abraham, of infants dying in the womb, of believers at the hour of death, y • t they not now visible Church members. 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership, yet being to the seed simply, may be true of them though not in infancy, and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members, especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times, it being certain that many are never visible Church members, as • ll still-born infants of believers; many that are visible Church members for a time, yet fall away; and therefore if that promise were gran • ed, and the condition and law put, yet infants might not be visible Christian Church members.

4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause, or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act, and the effect not be, then the cause which Mr. B. assigns is not sufficient. But the antececedent is true. For the promise, the parents actual believing, the law of nature, of nations, any particular precept of dedicating the child to God, the act of dedication as in Hannah's vow may be afore the child is born, and yet then the child is no visible Church member, Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxim in Logic, That the cause being put, the effect is put. To this Mr. B. plain Script. proof, &c. pag. 100. Moral causes (and so remote causes) might have all their being long before the effect, so that when the effect was produced there should be no alteration in the cause, though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing. I reply this answer deserved a smile. 1. For Mr. B. as his words show before cited, makes Christ by his law or covenant-g • ant, the only cause efficient, therefore it is the next cause, according to him, and not only a remote cause. 2. If the covenant or law be as much in being or acting, and the parents faith and dedication afore the child is born as after, and there is no alteration in the cause, though yet it have not produced the effect, then it is made by M. B. a cause in act, and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause, or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it. 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect, yet not the relative being of causes, for so they are together. So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law, yet they are not the cause adequate, and in act (which Mr. B. makes them) without the being of the effect: nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes. And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose. It is true, election, Christ's death, the covenant, &c. are causes of remission of sins, imputation of righteousness, salvation, before these be, but they are not the adequate causes in act: For there must be a further act of God, forgiving, justifying, delivering, afore these are actually. They are causes of the justificab • lity, the certainty, futurity of justification of themselves, but not of actual justification without man's faith, and God's sentence, which is the next cause. A deed before one's born, gives him title to an inheritance, but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it, &c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Church membership, the effect of a moral or legal cause. He imagines it to be a right or privilege by virtue of a grant or legal donation. But in this he is mistaken, confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it. Whereas the Church membership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral, to wit, the call whereby they are made Church members, and that act or sign what ever it be, whereby they may appear to be Church members to the understanding of others by mediation of sense. The privilege or benefit consequent is by a law, covenant, or some donation legal or moral; not the state itself of visible Church membership. Which I further prove thus.

5. If visible Church membership be antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant, then the Covenant is not the cause of it; for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it. But visible Church membership is immediately upon the persons believing professed, which is a condition of his being in Covenant; therefore it is before the Covenant, and consequently the Covenant not the cause.

6, If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not, be (as Mr. B. saith) the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient, then infants bought, orphans of Turks, &c. wholly at our dispose, are not visible Church members: For they have no covenant made to their parents, nor do their parents believe. But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptized, they are visible Church members, for such only are to be baptized, Ergo, the Covenant is not the sole efficient, there may be visible Church membership without it. The same may be said of foundlings, persons of unknown progeny, &c.

7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession, make not the parent a visible Church member, neither doth it the child; For the child who is by virtue of the parents being a visible Church member only, a visible Church member, cannot be such without his being such. But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Church member without profession, Ergo, The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness, nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings, is the same that hath the promise of this privilege to infants.

8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace, then it is not true, that Christ by his Law, or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Church membership. The consequence is plain, and needs no further proof. But the antecedent is true, Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites, who are visible Church members, but not by the Covenant of grace, for that promiseth nothing to them.

9. If infants be visible Church members by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing▪ then either the next parents, or any in any generations precedent. If the next only, let it be shown, why the visible Church membership should be limited to it: if in any near g • nerations, let it be shown where we must stick, and go no further; why, suppose the visible Church membership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count, the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible. Church membership as well as the Grandfathers: if there be no limit; why this visible Church membership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews, yea to • ll the world. If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief, why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor?

10. If an infants visible Church membership be by the covenant, upon the parents actual believing, and not a mere bare profession, then it is a thing that cannot be known, because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown. But that is absurd. Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review, sect. 35.

11. If other Christian privileges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent, then neither this. But the antecedent is true, the child is not a believer, a disciple, a minister, a son of God, &c. without his own consent, Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this.

12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed, by which either this infant visible Christian Church membership is granted, or the listing of infants, or entering into the visible Church Christian is made a duty, then that is not a cause of infants visible Church membership which Mr. B. assigns. But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed, Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration, but by neither; Ergo. If by Precept, in the New Testament, or the Old: Not in the New, there is no Precept to Minister, or paren • s, or any other, to take infants for visible Church members, or to list them as such: Nor in the Old, there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision, which is repealed; vowing, praying, &c. did neither then, nor now of themselves make visible Church members, although upon the prayers and faith, not only of parents, but of others, God granted remission of sins, conversion, cure of plagues, yet did not these make any visible Church members of themselves. If there be any other Declaration of God, it is either a positive law, or law of Nations, or of Nature: Not any positive law, if there be, let it be produced, not any law of Nations. This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth, that as it is in Kingdoms and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents, so in the Church: But if this were a rule in the Church of God, then not only • hildren must be visible Church members, but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants, and their children, as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects; and since Christ's Kingdom is over all the world, yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgment, pag. 14, 15. All are bought by Christ's death, and are his own, every man in the world should be a visible Church member. Nor any law of Nature: For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this, yet the vanity of it appears, 1. In that since the fall of man, the nature of man being corrupt, the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace, and free counsel of God. 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature, where the husband is, there the wife should be a visible Church member, as well as where the paaent is a Church member, there the child should be so too. For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child. But that is false, Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Church members, then Churches should be by natural descent: But that is false, it is by calling, as is above proved. 4. Churches are by institution, therefore not by the law of Nature. This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis, that they are made Church members by grant, covenant, gift on condition. 5. If they were by the law of Nature, all Churches should be domestical, not congregational or parochial; for they are not by nature, but by institution. 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature, they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model: But they are not so; they are called sometimes by Preachers, sometimes immediately by God, sometimes by authority; sometimes they are national, sometimes catholic; sometimes under one form of service and discipline, sometimes under another; sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Church member, sometimes the father the son; sometimes the wife of the husband, sometimes the husband of the wife, by which the order of Nature is inverted.

To all these arguments against infants visible Christian-Church membership, this one may be added, That there is neither example, rule, nor hint in all the New Testament, of their admission into the Church, or ordering in it, or care of the Elders and Officers of the Church for them as members, nor any other sign that Christ would have them reckoned as visible members in the Christian Church: which is a strong presumption against it. I know none that hath disputed for it, so much as Mr. B. I will therefore go on to examine what he saith.

SECT. LIII. Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, which he asserts, whereby the point is stated.

THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice, that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God, whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church, now Printed in his book of Baptism, ch. 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be, and he denying it was that of circumcision, urged him often to tell me what it was, which he would not, which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been. After, in my Precursor, I again told him, I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews, no universal law or ordinance for it. To which what elusory reply he made, is shown in the second Part o • this Review ▪ sect. 2. pag 8, 9. Which moved me, being then upon the examining of his 4th. and 5th. ch. from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster ▪ to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him.

The next morning I received from him this Letter, directed to me.

Being the same day to return home, yet loath to be put off thus, I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter, this also to him.

About a fortnight after I received this Letter to me from him.

Upon the receipt whereof, I speedily returned to him, on the day of the date of it, being then at Bewdley, this following Letter.

On May 29. 1655. I received this following answer.

Answ. It was a call sufficient to Mr. B. to do what I requested in my first Letter, in that a brother and fellow servant (as he takes me to be) desired it of him. If he love the truth ▪ as he saith, he should be willing to let us know his Scriptures he alledgeth for that which he asserts as a truth. If he conceive himself imperfect, knowing but in part, why should he not be jealous of his own opinion, especially resting on remote consequences, rather then violently oppose mine, which his own acknowledgements do make plainly agreeing with the New Testament? If I were a sophistical adversary, yet I should think it were meet Mr. B. should debate that with me which he hath so clamourously and confidently opposed me in. What better answer I need make to what is said then I have done, so far as I have gone (which is if not the greatest part, yet the chiefest, and indeed for Scripture Texts all that requires an answer) I see not. I have set down almost all my Antagonists words, in Mr. Bs. book, at least all that is argumentative and pertinent, with my answers distinctly, fully, and plainly, in the two foregoing Parts of this Review : And what way any man could take, more candid and agreeing to Logic rules, then I have gone in my answers, is yet to me undiscernable. Mr. Firmin, in his Separation examined, pag. 31. saith thus, I can easily discern Mr. Tombes to dispute more like a Sophister, then a Christian, that did desire to see truth : and he cites the words of Mr. M. in his Defense, pag. 147. which I have answered so fully in my Apology, pag. 78, 79. and shown that very way which Mr. M. chargeth me with, to be as contrary to sophistical disputing as light is to darkness, that I had thought impudence itself would not have charged me with that, in a book printed six years after the Edition of my Apology. Mr. Simon Ford, in his Epistle Dedicatory to his frivolous scribbled Dialogue, chargeth me with railing down rather then disputing, even in that which as he sets it down hath no show of reviling, but a plain calling a straw a straw. And for my heavy censure, I still profess I know not how to conceive more favourably of Paedobaptists, but wish they would search their own hearts impartially. Mr. Gataker in his letter printed by Mr. B. to whom it was written, doubts in part it to be my disposition to braze my forehead, not regarding at all what men deem or say of me, so I may seem to say somewhat, and have the last word ; then which, a more unrighteous conceit could hardly have been entertained by him. Mr. Bs. printing it, together with other passages, makes me almost hopeless of ever meeting with any just, or candid dealing from Paedobaptists. Mr. B. here saith, I jumble things in much conf • sion, that I contradict myself, eat my own words ; none of which is true: But he takes on him to prove it thus.

In your 2 d. you say [I confess infants were by God's fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy, not by any promise or precept, then visible Churc • -members, that is, of the congregation of Israel; I do not confess, that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but only a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, &c.] In your 3 d. you say [For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai, and Deut, 29. wherein Israel avouched God, and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people, and requiring of them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. & Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Church membership, or precept for paren • s or others concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Church members besides Circumcision, as in your book of Bapt. you assert] Before there was no [Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but only a fact] now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so, but [not such as I assert in my book] And if I should show you never so many, you may reply, they are not such as I assert in my book, and waste the time in that trial, when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book: For this is but to lead us about to trifling.

Answ. 1. There is not a shadow of self contradiction in the latter words to the former. For though the latter acknowledge promises to Israel, yet not that by them they were visible Church members; and Laws and Ordinances, yet not determining they should be visible Church members. Had Mr. B. heeded my words, he had forborne this accusation, if he were not bent to find a knot in a bulrush. 2. If I should answer as he forebodes, I should answer rightly. And it is certain, that if Mr. B. should bring never so many promises, and not show that they made infants visible Church members, as he asserts in his book, he would waste time, and lead us about to trifling; and therefore it is just I should tie him to that, and his excepting against my so doing would show his wrangling, and will be taken for a losing of his cause. But I am resolved to follow him, even in his vagaries, and to examine whether it be true which he saith, that I jumble things in much confusion.

To make any clear work, saith Mr. B. upon the things in question we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly, many of which you too much confound. The first question in order fit to be resolved is [whether infants before Christ's incarnation were Church members? or not?] you grant they were: and therefore this is past dispute with us. The 2 d. Qu. and though first unresolved, is [what Church it is that infants were members of?] This you give me occasion to take in the way, because you twice explain your meaning, when you confess them Church members, by an [i. e. of the congregation of Israel.] By which you seem to imply two things: First, that none but the infants of the congregation of Israel were Church members: Secondly, that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel.] The 3 d. Qu. is▪ What it is that gives the Israelites that denomination of [the Congregation of Israel] of which infants were members. For you jumble both together, both causes Civil, and Ecclesiastical, and of both those that make to the being and well-being. So that our enquiry must be Whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense?] and what constituteth it formally? For in this you speak in dark ambiguities. The 4 th. Qu▪ is▪ [Whether there was any Law, Ordinance, or Precept of God concerning man's duty herein, or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement, and so to membership and any promise, grant, or Covenant, conferring the right of Church membership and the consequent privileges to infants?] To this you say both Yea and Nay, if I can understand you, or at least as to much of the Qu. concerning the being, and part of the effect of the precept and promise. Yet you conclude, that you [do not conceive that infants of Israel were made • isible Church members by the promises in the Covenants, or the precepts fore named, but by God's transeunt fact.] I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant, because your tying the effect to the transeunt fact doth exclude them. Here we are cast upon these Qus. next. 5 th. Qu. [ Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant (or as I shall prove) which yet make not infants Church members?] 6 th. Qu. [Whether there be any transeunt fact of God, which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the infants of Israel Church members?] 7 th. Qu. [ Whether those which you have assigned be such facts? ] 8 th. [Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws, precepts, or grants which I maintain?] this you insist upon. 9 th. [Whether such laws, preceps, or grants as I shall prove, are capable of a repeal or revocation?] 10 th. Qu. [ Whether they are actually revoked or repealed?]

Answ. The 8th. Qu. is the only Qu. needful to be resolved▪ All the rest are brought in to clog the Dispute, to weary me, and the Reader, in an indirect way most of them raised out of my words; in which if I should be mistaken, yet were it not thereby proved, that there is such a Law or Ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, as Mr. B. asserts. Nor by waving of these questions did I jumble things in much confusion, but decline drawing in things impertinent. Nevertheless, since Mr. B. hath used these shifts to clog the Dispute, I am resolved to prosecute it in his method, having first premon shed the Reader, that many things here said are not true, as that I seem to imply that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel ; that I jumble both causes Civil and Ecclesiastical, and of both those that make to the being and well being ; that I say Yea and Nay to the 4 th. Qu. that I tie the effect to the transeunt fact. He adds.

Answ. I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler, nor know I any need to Dispute so many questions, or to agree on terms; I shall answer him as I see meet. What he desired I gave him, not only an explication of one word, but also of the thing, which that it raiseth so many doubts, seems not to be from the darkness of the understanding, but either from the lightness of the fancy, or the bent of the will to find a way to blunt the Readers attention ere he comes to the 8th. Qu. which it was just Mr. B. should have answered alone, since otherwise it were an unjust thing for him to put me to prove a repeal of I know not what. His serving me hereby in my present ends of writing had been equal, my ends and writing being only for the truth: His appear to be for a shift to uphold a while by indirect courses a tottering corruption, which must fall. I follow him.

SECT. LIV. Infants were visible Church members only in the Congregation of Israel.

Answ. By [the congregation of Israel ] I meant the same with the Hebrew people, or house of Abraham ▪ which I termed the congregation of Israel by an anticipation usual in Scripture; as when, Gen. 12.8. it is said that Abraham removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, though it were not so named till Jacob's time, Gen. 28.19. Which term I the rather chose, because it is most frequent in Scripture; and I remember not the phrase anywhere [the Church or congregation of Abraham, but of Israel ] in Scripture, the phrase of which I thought best to use. Now taking the congregation of Israel for the Hebrew people or the house of Abraham, I say, the infants only of the congregation of Israel, as I say here, Sect. 51. by birth property, or proselytism were visible Church members. Nor is it anything against this my Tenet, that the Shechemites infants, Gen. 34. were visible Church members; for they were circumcised as consenting to become one people with them as is expressed v. 16, 22. and therefore of the congregation of Israel. So that what ever were the reason of the reproach, v. 14. what ever were the ends of Jacob's sons or the Shechemites, how ever the fact is to be construed, or it be to be judged that they were circumcised or not, yet that instance proves not visible Church membership of infants anywhere but in the congregation of Israel, since the Shechemites if they were truly circumcised, and so visible Church members, it was because they were by agreement one people, and so of the congregation of Israel. Mr. B. adds.

6.

Answ. This argument in form would be thus. If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision, then it was not only the infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church members. But the antecedent is true, Ergo the consequent. Of this argument I deny the consequence of the major, and the minor also. I deny the consequence, because they that did engage themselves and children to God by Circumcision, did thereby engraff themselves and children into the congregation of Israel. I deny also the minor. For though I acknowledge it was the duty of all the world to engage themselves to God by covenanting to take him for their God, yet I do not conceive that they were all bound to do it by circumcision. For I conceive that precept given only to the Hebrews or house of Abraham. In whi • h I am confirmed, in that I find not that Sem, Melchizedek, Lot, Job, ever did so or are blamed for not doing it. It is most certain that Cornelius, though a man that feared God with all his house, yet was neither he nor his house circumcised, Acts 10.2. & 11.3. and yet accepted of God. It is true, if any would keep the Passover, and be admitted to the rites of the Tabernacle, he was to be circumcised with his males: But they might devote and engage themselves and children to God without it, nor was it necessary that God should be their God in covenant or to their salvation that they were circumcised, or joined to the people of the Jews. I confess it was of much moment to reduce the nations, and to preserve them from the idolatry that defi • ed the world, to be of that people: for generally the uncircumcised who were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, were without God in the world, without Christ, without hope aliens from the Covenants of promise ; and therefore it was a good office to endeavor to bring the nations to God by circumcision, and a desirable advantageous thing, as it is now to be in a well ordered fixed Church, yet I cannot say it is or was necessary for all, either as a duty or means of salvation to do either. Mr. B. goes on.

7. • n Hesters time many of the people became Jews Hest. 8.17. who yet were not under their government. And to be Jews is to be of the Jewish profession. And it • s well known that this was to be circumcised, they and their little ones (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep the Law of Moses.

Answ. Though they were not under the Jews Government in respect of all power and command, yet they were incorporated into the Jewish people, and were under their government as far as other Jews by birth were, having some exercise and liberty of using their own laws, though with subjection also to the Persian Princes. I confess their being Jews was by circumcising of them and their males, but hereby is not proved that any infants were visible Church members but in the Congregation of Israel, but rather the contrary. Since they were become Jews, that is of the Congregation of Israel.

8. Saith Mr. B. The scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abraham's successors, and yet were to Circumcise their children as Church members.

Answ. Though they were from under the Government of Abraham's successor in respect of all power and command, yet they were under their Government so far, as they were permitted the exercise of the Mosaic Laws, and were of the Congregation of Israel, and were Circumcised as members thereof; and therefore no infants yet proved visible Church members out of that Congregation.

9. Saith Mr. B. When Jonas preached to Nineveh, it was all the race of man among them, without exception, from the greatest to the least, that was to fast and join in the humiliation : Ergo, all, even infants as well as others, were to partake of the remission. If you say, the beasts were to fast too: I answer, as they were capable in their kind of part of the curse, so were they of part of the benefit, but their capacity was not as man's: They fasted to manifest man's humiliation. And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kind, no wonder if infants sped the better in theirs, and according to their capacities, and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin.

Answ. All this is quite from the business, for it proves not that either the aged or the infants were visible Church members out of the Congregation of Israel. If the fasting prove the visible Church membership, it proves the visible Church membership of the beasts as well as the infant-men. If the repentance be alleged to prove it, I hardly think such a sudden quickly past repentance will prove any of them visible Church members of Christ, anymore then the Mariners prayer, fear, sacrificing, making vows, Jonah 1.14.6. If it do, yet it proves only the aged who turned from their evil way, Jonah 3.10. to be visible Church members; there's no proof yet of an infants visible Church membership out of the Congregation of Israel.

10. Saith Mr. B. What I have said of Sem and many others, and their posterity already▪ I shall not here again repeat: and more will be said anon to the following questions.

Answ. What is said shall be answered in its place. Mr. B. goes on thus.

Answ. I grant as I did heretofore, that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ, as well as of the Congregation of Israel, or rather in that they were of the Congregation of Israel, nor do I deny that Christ had then a Church on earth, nor that there was no true Church, or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ. But as for the third, though I grant that Christ's invisible Church is but one by unity of the same spirit and faith, and that the visible Church is but one in some respect, namely in respect of the profession o • the same faith and hope in Christ: yet they are not so one, as that whoever is a visible member of one particular Church, is a member of each particular Church; and though I yield that whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal, yet it follows not, which is it that Mr. B. drives at, and vainly talks of his proving it elsewhere, as will be shown hereafter) that everyone who was a member of the universal Church, in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular, was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ; nor that everyone that was a member of the universal Church, in that he was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ, was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church. As for instance, Cornelius and his house who feared God, Acts 10.2. were visible members of that particular Church of his house, and so of the universal, yet were not visible members of the particular Church Jewish, as may be proved from their uncircumcision and shunning as unclean by the Jews, Acts 10. & 11.3. The reason is manifest: For the universal hath not a distinct existence from the parts, nor is any part existing in another part, because it is part of the whole, as the finger is not in every part of the body because it is in the body, in that it is in the hand, which is a part. And therefore Mr. Bs. arguing (which he confides so much in, part. 1. ch. 20. of plain Script. &c.) will appear to be vain; that because infants were visible members of the Church universal, in that they were of the Church Jewish, therefore they are in the Christian, properly so called, contradistinct to the Jewish. Which speech I use, as commonly Divines do, because though the Jewish Church were Christ's Church, yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the days of the Apostles Acts 11.26. we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called, that is, which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching, nor Moses in the Christian Church, nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church, as Egypt though in Africa, and Persia though in Asia, yet are not said to be in Asia the less, or Africa propria. Mr. B. proceeds.

Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that [it was not only of the Jews Commonwealth that infants were members of, but of the Church distinct from it.] This is proved sufficiently in what is said before.]

Answ. As yet I do not find it proved, that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth, or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth. What is said about it, sect. 43. may be there seen by the Reader.

Moreover, saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Church members in Abraham's family before Circumcision, and after when it was no Commonwealth. So they were in Isaac's, Jacob's, &c.

Answ. Abraham's family, and Isaac's, and Jacob's, were a Commonwealth, although they were but small; they had government within themselves. Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself, Gen. 14.14. Isaac made a league as a Prince co • ordinate, Gen. 26.31. so did Jacob, Gen. 31.53. These with other acts show they were an independent Commonwealth.

2. Saith Mr. B. The banished, captivated, scattered Jews, that ceased to be members of their Commonwealth, yet ceased not to be of the Church.

Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews, as they were of the Church, both de jure, and de facto, they acknowledging themselves to be of that people, and to a • here to their laws, although somewhat restrained of their liberty, as a captivated, imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republic to which he hath not access.

3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land, that became Jews in Hesters time, joined not themselves to their Commonwealth: Nor the Shechemites.

Answ. The contrary is true▪ as concerning the Shechemites is shown before.

4. Saith he, Many Proselytes never joined themselves to their Commonwealth.

Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members.

5. Saith he, The children of Abraham by Keturah, when they were removed from his family were not unchurched; and yet were no members of the Jews Commonwealth. But I shall take up with what is said for this already, undertaking more largely to manifest it, when I perceive it necessary and useful.

Answ. Abraham's children by Keturah, when out of the Commonwealth of the Hebrews were unchurched, at least, in respect of the Church of the Hebrews ; nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary, will be anything but more words without proof.

SECT. LV. Infants of the Jews were not visible Church members, by Promise, or Precept; as Mr. B. teacheth.

MR. B. proceeds. To the 4th. Qu. I assert that [1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God, by accepting his favor, and re-engaging and devoting them to God, and so entering them solemnly Church members.] And [2. there was a Covenant, promise or grant of God, by which he offered the Church membership of some infants and actually conferred it, where his offer was accepted.] I should have mentioned this first, and therefore will begin with the proof of this. By these term▪ Covenant, promise, grant, or deed of gift, &c. we understand that which is common to all these, viz. [ A s • gne of God's will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit] such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal. I call it [a sign of God's will de jure] because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts▪ they are all signal determinations de debiro▪ of some due. 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit] to d • fference it from precepts which only determine what shall be due from us to God, and from threatenings, which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us.

Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here, is in opposition to what I said in my 2d. Le • ter; I confess infants were by God's fact of taki • g the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy (not by any promise or precept) visible Church members, that is of the Congregation of Israel ▪ and in my 3d. I explai • myself, a promise conferri • g infants the benefit of Church membership, with all the consequent privileges, a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God, and entering into Covenant, which confers the benefit (which were his own words in his first Letter) so that if we prove by any other gr • nt or deed of gift, physical or moral, which is not a promise of it, by which it is conferred, or by any Law which is not such a pr • cept, he contradicts not my speech, and so disputes not ad idem. Which whether he do or no, will be perceived by examining what follows.

Having thus, saith he, explained the terms, I prove the proposition. If infants Church membership with the privileges thereof were a benefit conferred, which some had right to or in, then was there some grant, covenant, or promise, by which this right was conferred: But the antecedent is most certain : Ergo, so is the consequent. I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God▪ to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people▪ to be brought so near him, and to be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, and from the strangers to the covenant of promises, that live as without God in the world, and without hope.

Answ. I do not deny it, but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally, or connexively. For men may be visible Church-members, and yet not have all this benefit, and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church members. Hypocrites may be visible Church members, yet not be God's covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people, to be brought so near him, &c. And some believing Saints that are dumb, may have all this, and yet not be visible Church members.

Mr. B. adds, If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision? I suppose you would say, much every way.

Answ. I should, but I would add; that to be the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Church members: Cornelius and his house were visible Church members yet not the Circumcision: Nor were the benefits mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. conferred to them as visible Church-members, (For then all visible Church members had been partakers of the same benefits, they had had the Oracles of God committed to them, the giving the Law, Christ from them after the flesh, &c. Rom. 9.4, 5. which is raise) but as to a people specially loved and gratified with these privileges.

He adds. If Infant-Church membership were no benefit, then they that had it, were not (when they came to age or their parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it. But they were obliged to be thankful for it. Ergo, it was a benefit.

Answ. Visible Church membership simply notes only a state, by which was a benefit. By the infant visible Jewish Church membership was a benefit of honor and special dignity above other people, which God then vouchsafed to the Jews, and do • h not so now to infants of believing Christians as such, and for it the Jew parents and children were to be thankful.

He goes on.

Answ. Mr. B. is guilty of that which he chargeth me with unjustly, jumbling things together which are to be distinguished, visible Church membership, right to or of visible Church membership, to the benefits of it, duly and rightfully receiving of it. The infants of the Jews were visible Church members, not by a legal right to it, antecedent to their being such visible Church members, which they or any for them might claim as due; nor was it capable of duly and rightfully being received or usurped: For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people, who were in appearance from things sensible, God's people; and this they had by God's fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly, to wit, his forming them and bringing them into the world, and placing them so as to be ranked among his visible people, and known by things obvious to sense to be of this people, from which this state results without any such receiving as may be denominated duly or rightfully done or usurped. Yet I grant they had a right in it, that is, they had it by God's donation, without any usurpation by them or any other; and they had right to the benefit consequent, as to the honor and esteem and dignity absolutely, and to other benefits, if there were any other annexed to it, whether absolutely or conditionally. Yet to the proofs of Mr. B. I say, 1. That it seems to me not true, that the nature of the benefit