Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 52

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 52

p. 336SECT. 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in the primitive times, then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before, must needs be repealed.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 dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth, is proved by these arguments.

1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised. 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 p. 337whole 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 baptised. 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 it self. 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 p. 338at 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 Christs 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 onelyonly 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; Christs 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 shew that most of …he disciples were Galileans, few of Jerusalem; specially when all the disciples forsook Christ and fled, Matth. 26.56. the shepheard being smitten and the sheep scattered, v. 31. 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 bee ascribed …o infants, it is evident that infants were not then countted among the disciples, and consequen…ly not counted for visible members of the Christian Church.

Acts 2.1. They are said to be all with one accord in one place. The Assembly ubi suprà alledgeth reasons why they all should be meant of the Apostles onelyonly, but not cogent. For 1. the narration doth not any more limit the words Act. 2.1. by Acts 1.26 then by v. 15. 2. not onelyonly 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 Galile…ns that spake v. 7. yet it proves not the [all] v. 1. to be Galileans. 4. the mention is of the Apostles v. 14, 37, 42. not to shew that it was a meeting of the Apost…es onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 bee together p. 339foreign with one accord, or one minde and consent, which is not to be said of infants.

From Acts 2.41. I further argue, The Church did then consist of such persons onelyonly as were of like sort with those who were added to it, which must be granted except it be said, the added and those who were added were of different sorts. But of those who were added there was no one infant. This is proved from the words v. 42, 43. that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers, and fear came upon every soul, v. 41. they gladly received the word, which cannot be said of infants; therefore no infant was reckoned then 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 onelyonly of the newly added; however the addition being of the same sort of persons with those to whom they were added, and no one infant reckoned to the Church, but all men, that heard the word and believed, it is clear that in the number of the christians or disciples infants were not reckoned, and consequently no visible church members then.

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

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

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

Acts 6.1. The Church is expressed by the number of Disciples, by p. 340the multitude of Disciples, v. 2. the whole multitude, v. 5. the number of the Disciples obedient to the faith, v. 7. But none of these were infants, as their conventing, the speeches to them, and other acts shew; therefore infants then were not reckoned Christian visible church-members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were no part of the Church of God, who were none of the flock of God to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers over them by the Holy Ghost to feed them. For all these things are attributed to all the flock or Church of God at Ephesus, Acts 10.28. But infants were none of the flock to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers by the Holy Ghost to feed them, Nurses were to attend and feed infants, not teaching and ruling Elders, whose work was in the word p. 341and doctrine, 1 Tim. 5.17. therfore infants were none of the flock or Church of God visible at that time.

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

5. They who were not reckoned as Christs Disciples, were not visible church-members; For as Mr. B. rightly saith, plain Script▪ &c. All church-members are Christs Disciples. But infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples. This is proved, 1. from the places in all the Acts of the Apostles, and elsewhere, where there is mention of Christs Disciples, there are such things declared of them as do exclude infants from the number of them. I omit Acts 1.15. & 6.1, 2, 5, 7. before mentioned. Acts 11.26, 29. It is said that Barnabas and Saul a whole year assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people, and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch: And upon the prediction of a dearth it is said, Then the Disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea, which they also did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. From whence this is apparent, that the Church, the Disciples, the Christians were then Synonyma, or terms importing the same 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 havock of the Church. Acts 9.1. against the Disciples, p. 342v. 13. the Saints at Hierusalem, v. 19. the Disciples at Damascus, v. 25. the Disciples, v. 26. joyning to the Church is joyning to the Disciples, v. 35. the Brethren, v. 31. the Churches, v. 38. the Disciples heard, v. 41. called the Saints. Acts. 15.1. it is said they taught the Brethren, v. 3. being brought on their way by the Church, they caused great joy unto all the Brethren; v. 4. they were received of the Church. v. 10. the Disciples are they whose hearts were purified by faith; the whole Church v. 22. are the Brethren, v. 23. who send greeting to the Brethren. v. 30. they were the multitude gathered together, v. 32. they exhorted the Brethren, v. 33. were let go in peace from the Brethren, v. 36. let us visit our Brethren, v. 40. recommended by the Brethren. v. 41. confirming the Churches. Acts 10.2. well reported of by the Brethren, v. 5. And so were the Churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily, v. 40. and when they had seen the Brethren they comforted them. Acts 17.10, 14. the Brethren sent away Paul. Which passages do shew, that these terms were then of the same extent, and synonymous, the Church, the Disciples, the Brethren, the Believers, the Saints: But infants were none of the Church, the Disciples, the Brethren, the Believers, the Saints as all the passages where they are mentioned shew, therefore infants were not then visible church members

Acts 18.18. Paul took leave of the Brethren, v. 22. he saluted the Church, v. 23. strengthened all the Disciples, which strengthening was by teaching and exhorting, as Acts 14.…2. shews: Which infants were not capable of, therefore they were not Disciples▪ V. 27. the Brethren wrote, exhorting the Disciples to receive Apollos▪ who helped them much who believed through grace. Acts 19.1, 2. Paul finds certain Disciples who were Believers, v. 9. separates the Disciples, v. 30. the Disciples would not suffer Paul to enter in unto the people. Acts 20.7. Upon the first day of the week, when the Disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them at Troas. Which shews plainly, that the Disciples did use to break bread on the first day of the week, and that those who were Disciples did 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 Kingdome of God, and the Name of Jesus p. 343Christ; 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 Lords 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 adde, that in Tertullians 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 Hierome expresseth the same as from Tertullians bo…k de monogamia, in his Epistle to Paulinus, tom. 3d. 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 shews 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 onelyonly 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 faithfull 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 every one such a relation unto, and dependance upon the catholick Church, as parts have to the whole. Dr. John Rainold 2d. 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 faithfull. 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 catholick 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 faithfull, called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the faith of Christ, visible believers receiving and embracing the Christian catholick 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 p. 344part 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 Defence, part 3. sect 3. pag. 113. saith. I reply, it overthrows it not at all; for they all include the infants of such professors, as the visible Church among the Jews did include their infants, male (and female too, lest you say that Circumcision made them members.)

Answ. Mr. M. should have shewed 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 erre 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 shew 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.

I adde also, Baptism now (as well as Circumcision of old) is a real, though implicite profession of the Christian faith.

Answ. That circumcision was a profession of the Christian faith either explicite in Elder proselites, 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 baptised being his act is a real, though implicit profession of the christian faith, it being used by the baptised to declare his putting on Christ, and so a signe 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 shew of faith, which they neither understand, nor take …o bee 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 any thing towards their baptism, nor understand any thing 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, p. 345an 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 bee more implicite 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 discernable to the understanding, by some sensible note or signe by which it is known: But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church, or church-member is discernable doth agree, Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing 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, joyning 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 shew by any thing 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 yeilding 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 baptised in water by a Minister, or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper, can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament. For he onelyonly hath communion in a Sacrament, who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed, and this use onelyonly 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 Lords Supper as a signe 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 joyn in prayer▪ discipline, or any part of Christian worship or service, which might shew they own Christ as their Lord, and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note.

2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members, are not notes of their visible church-membership. Two notes are usually alledged, the one the covenant of God, the other the parents profession of faith; neither shew 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 childe, much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace, or visible church-membership, and a promise to save indefinitely, not expressing definitely who, is not a note whereby p. 346by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs. Besides, if there were such a promise to every childe 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 onelyonly 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 it self, 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 childe 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 discernable 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 Defence, 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 Logick 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 separat▪ 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 Christs 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 p. 347constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another, of the parent, church, &c. It is a meer 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 mans own faith Hab. 2.4. not anothers; therefore a mans own and not anothers 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 anothers faith to an infant, Ergo. Naturally there is none, nor legally; if there be, …et him that can, shew 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, labour, &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 onelyonly passive, and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christi…ns as experience shews, 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 dayes 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 bee visible Christian church-members, then there may be a visible Church christian, which consists onelyonly 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 onelyonly infants behinde 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 Abrahams, or Israels 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 bee onelyonly of infants of believers, whereof not one is a believer by profes…ion, not so p. 348of ths Jewish church. 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose, though it never were or should bee so in the event, sith the absurdity followes 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 it self evident, every thing 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 onelyonly. But of neither, Ergo. I presume it will be said of some, sith they account it a priviledge 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 childrens 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 priviledge 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 meer 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 Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self: but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onelyonly cause efficient. Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred 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 faithfull and their seed. Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome, and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome. Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith. So p. 349that 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 meer bare profession of faith, is properly the onelyonly 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 childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember, nor any such law either of nature or nations, or positive, which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member, then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership 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 followes.

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 onelyonly 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 churchmembership upon the faith of another. The conditional covenant is of justification, salvation on condition of faith, and this p…omiseth not visible Churchmembership, but saving graces, it promiseth unto all upon condition, and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge 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 Churchmembers, 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 Churchmembers. 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 Churchmembers, as …ll still-born infants of believers; many that are visible Churchmembers 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 Churchmembers.

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. assignes 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 childe to God, the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born, and yet then the childe is no visible Church member, Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick, That the cause being p. 350put, 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 bee 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 shew before cited, makes Christ by his law or covenant-g…ant, the onelyonly cause efficient, therefore it is the next cause, according to him, and not onelyonly a remote cause. 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting, and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe 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, Christs 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 mans faith, and Gods 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 Churchmembership, the effect of a moral or legal cause. He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue 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 Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral, to wit, the call whereby they are made Churchmembers, and that act or signe what ever it be, whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense. The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law, covenant, or some donation legal or moral; not the state it self of visible Churchmembership. Which I further prove thus.

5. If visible Churchmembership bee 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 Churchmembership 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) p. 351the 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 baptised, they are visible Churchmembers, for such onelyonly are to be baptised, Ergo, the Covenant is not the sole efficient, there may bee 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 Churchmember, neither doth it the childe; For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onelyonly, a visible Churchmember, cannot be such without his being such. But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember 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 priviledge 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 Churchmembership. 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 Churchmembers, but not by the Covenant of grace, for that promiseth nothing to them.

9. If infants be visible Churchmembers 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 onelyonly, let it be shewed, why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it: if in any near g…nerations, let it be shewed where we must stick, and go no further; why, suppose the visible Churchmembership 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. Churchmembership as well as the Grandfathers: if there be no limit; why this visible Churchmembership 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 Churchmembership be by the covenant, upon the parents actual believing, and not a meer 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 priviledges 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.

p. 35212. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed, by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted, or the listing of infants, or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty, then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership 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 Churchmembers, 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 Churchmembers, although upon the prayers and faith, not onelyonly of parents, but of others, God granted remission of sins, conversion, cure of plagues, yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers 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 Kingdomes 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 onelyonly …hildren must be visible Churchmembers, 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 sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world, yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement, pag. 14, 15. All are bought by Christs death, and are his own, every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember. 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 Churchmember, as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember, 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 Churchmembers, then Churches should be by natural discent: 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 Churchmembers 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 catholick; sometimes under one form of service and discipline, sometimes under another; sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember, sometimes p. 353the 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-Churchmembership, 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.