Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 64

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 64

p. 449SECT. LXIIII. My Answer in the Dispute and Sermon to the argument of Mr. B. of Baptism, part 1. ch. 6. about the non-repeal of infants Churchmembership, because neither in justice nor mercy, is vindicated.

PLain Scripture proof, &c. part 1. ch. 6. Mr B. speaks thus. My first argument is this. If God have repealed this ordinance, and revoked this mercifull gift of infants Churchmembership, then it is either in mercy, or in justice; either for their good, or for their hurt. But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good, nor in justice for their hurt: therefore he hath not at all repealed it. I will hide nothing from you that Mr. T. hath said against this argument, either in our publick Dispute, or in his Sermon. The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major proposition, he never offered to deny: nor indeed is there any ground to deny it. It must needs be for the good or hurt of infants that they are put out; and so must needs be in mercy or justice, For God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws, to no end, and of no moment, but in meer indifferency.

Answ. In the Dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649. and the Sermon shortly after, I did not understand Mr. Bs. opinion as I do now; nor did afore the writing of his last Letter, conceive of his law and ordinance of visible Churchmembership what it was, and where it was to be found; nor do I yet conceive clearly what the benefit and priviledge is to infants by their visible Churchmembership which he asserts. And therefore if I gave not so clear an answer to this argument as were requisite, it is to be imputed partly to the unacquaintedness with it at that time, partly to Mr. Bs. artifice, who carried himself close in the Dispute for indirect advantage, and still is unwilling to shew his mind fully, though desired by me in the Letter before set down. What is his opinion about the law unrepealed, is considered before; what he imagines are the priviledges and benefit of his infants visible Churchmembers, seems to be intimated in these passages of his Letter in the 4th. qu. set down here, sect. 55. when he saith, I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God, to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people, to be brought so near him, and to be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises, that live as without God in the world, and without hope. In another passage, set down Sect. 56. To be a member of the Church, is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God, and taken by him for his special people. The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society. The relation then essentially containeth 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men, Christs headship, and p. 450that favour, protection, provision, and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious a Soveraign to such subjects, and from such a head to his members: As also a right to my station in the body, and to the inseparable benefits thereof. Which how false they are, is in part shewed above. He likewise expresseth the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian, as if it were a casting out, excommunicating, by a punitive execution of a curse or law on them, ch. 5. part 1. of plain Scripture proof, &c. wherein how he is mistaken is shewed above. These things being premised, I say, that if Mr. B. understand by [mercy] remunerative mercy, and by [justice] punitive justice (as he seems to do,) I deny the major. And to his reasons I answer, 1. Simply, and of it self, the non…visible Churchmembership of infants imports neither hurt nor good to them: But by accident, in that their visible Churchmembership in the Church of the Hebrews obliged them to Circumcision and the yoke of the Law, so it imports hurt to them. 2. If it did import hurt or good to them, yet it might be neither by an act of remunerative mercy, nor punitive justice, that they are left out o… the Church; but by an act of meer Soveraignty, as it is in election and reprobation, and in the disposing of the Gospel where God pl…aseth. 3. God hath his ends in this alteration, as to shew his freeness, his intent to have his visible Church more spiritual then the Jewish, &c. though not to shew his remunerative mercy or avenging justice. 4. It is not in meer indifferency, but of moment to these ends that hee doth so.

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

Answ. Gods revoking mercies in justice to the parties hurt, is sometimes without the particular persons breaking Covenant with him, or his desert. Are not the infants of Adam deprived of life in justice to their hurt, without their breaking Covenant with God, or their personal desert? Are not many infants and others deprived of the preaching of the Gospel, who yet are descended from faithfull ancestors who never brake Covenant with God, onelyonly for that the nation of which they are a part, are over-run by barbarous people, they carried away captive, they and their children made slaves? Do not these things happen to the most godly Saints? Doth not Solomon tell us, Eccles. 9.2. that all things come alike to all? Doth not the Apostle tell us, Rom. 9.11, 12. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the cle…ion might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, It was said to Rebecca, the elder shall serve the younger; As it … written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated: whence v. 18. he infers, therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have p. 451mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth? And again, Rom. 11.33. after he had considered the various ways of Gods dealing with Jews and Gentiles, he thus concludes, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his paths past finding out! From whence, and from innumerable experiments of thousands of godly Greeks whose children are taken from them and made Turks, and others, I may safely deny the minor of Mr. Bs. argument, which he saith is certain, as being most certainly false, and like the arguing of the Disciples, John 9 2. which Christ refuted v. 3. concerning the man who was born blind.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 452Answ. This argument indeed were good if God had made this Covenant with men, That whoever of them believe in Christ, their infant children should be Churchmembers visible in his Church Jewish or Catholick. But there was never such a Covenant made by God, and therefore though he alters the frame of the Church, so as to leave out infants of beleivers from being visible members, he breaks no Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. B. goes …n. I am brief in this, because Mr. T. doth not deny it. But that which he answereth is, that [It is in mercy for their p. 453good.] I prove the contrary plainly thus. It can be no mercy to take away a mercy, except it be to give a greater in the stead of it: But here is no greater mercy given to infants in the stead of Churchmembership; therefore it can be no mercy to them that it be revoked. The major Mr. T. doth not deny, and I will fully tell you all that he saith to the minor. 1. In his Dispute he answered, that Churchmembership of infants was revoked in mercy for their good; and that they had a greater mercy in stead of it: And what do you think is that greater mercy? Why, it is Christ come in the flesh. I confess it amazeth me to see the power of errour, how it can both at once bereave the understanding of ordinary light, and the conscience of tenderness; or one of these at least. Is it possible that the judgement of such a man as Mr. T. can take this for a satisfactory answer, or his conscience give him leave to deny Churchmembership to all infants in the world, and to raise a Schisme in a poor distressed Church; and to charge their own bloud on the heads of his people that yeeld not to him, and all upon such lamentable grounds as these?

Answ. 1. I deny that now which I did not deny in the Dispute, neither understanding whereto Mr. Bs. argument tended, nor what his opinion was in the matter of his argument, nor having competent time to consider his words. 2. I was somewhat amazed at first reading at Mr. Bs. dealing with me who had so good an opinion of his godliness and tenderness of consciences, and his pretences of friendliness, that if a man had sworn to me, before he printed, that he would have thus abused and accused me so falsly, I should not have believed it. But I see no hopes of any justice from such an intemperate Zelot for his opinion, nor any right understanding of me, or any thing I say or do, from one so prejudiced, superficial, in his consideration of things, yet peremptory, and rash in his determinations, as Mr. B. is. Suppose I had answered them as weakly as Mr. B. imagines I did, yet a litt…e experience might have told him, that it might have commen from other causes then the power of errour, bereaving at once my understanding of ordinary light, and my conscience of tenderness. Such censures, if there were no more, shew Mr. B. was carried with intemperate heat in his writing, a thing which certainly corrupts a mans judgement, and ma…è verum examinat omnis corruptus Judex. To his accusations I answer, It is false that I deny Churchmembership to all the infants in the world, that I raise a Schism in a poor distressed Church, that I thretaen those that yeeld not to me and all upon the grounds he mentions, which yet are not lamentable any otherwise then because they are no better heeded. But to the argument. The major I shall consider anon; the minor is that which is under present consideration, which I deny, and avow what I then answered, with this explication and amplification. Infants visible Churchmembership was onelyonly in the Hebrew nation. The end of God was in taking that nation to be his visible people, that there might be a fixed nation among whom and from whom Christ should be born. To that end he would have them distinguished from other people p. 454by Circumcision, by laws▪ &c. He would have their Tribes distinguished, their inheritances fixed, their genealogie certain; this was the benefit of that nation, the honour and mercy to the infants and others, and God took it away after Christs comming as being useless, it being to usher it in, I mean the whole ordering of the Hebrew Churchmembership; and it was a greater mercy to the Church of God, and thereby to the infants, who had their Churchmembership onelyonly a mercy before by consequence as a part of that people, without any feeling or enjoyment of it till they came to riper age: And this was a greater mercy then their former membership, 1. in that they were freed from the yoke of the Law; 2. Christ who was promised was a known person, and revealed and accomplished the will of God concerning the salvation of h…s people. Let's view Mr. Bs. refutation.

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

Answ. Mr. B. keeps his wont of refuting me by frivolous questions and foolish scoffs, in stead of solid arguments. To them as they are, I return these answers. He himself ch. 30. saith, The dedication of the first…born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him, and yet he can give no more Scripture or reason for it, then I can for this, that the Churchmembership of infants was but to endure till Christs comming in the flesh. To omit what I have already argued in the 50, 51, 52. sections before, in my apprehension the Apostle doth plainly teach, Gal. 3.16. to the end, that the Churchmembership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham, continued onelyonly till faith came, that is, till Christ was exhibited, and believed on as already come in the flesh, that now all are children of God, Abrahams seed by faith, that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile, the Jews natural birth brings not him in the Church, nor the Gentiles uncircumcision excludes him; that so many as are admitted into the Church by Baptism do put on Christ, and consequently the Churchmembership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth, and there is no Churchmembership, but by faith in Christ. And this I might further confirm from Gal. 5.6. Col. 2.11, 12. & 3.11. And to these Scriptures I add this reason, p. 455The course that God took in severing the Jewish nation from other people, circumcising the males, keeping the distinction of tribes, and the inheritances in the families, and the genealogies so exactly till Christ came, ordering the tax of Augustus at the time of Christs birth, and after his ascension scattering the Jews out of their land, overturning their Commonwealth, confounding their pedigrees, taking to himself another Church in another way, by preaching the Gospel, and baptizing believers, and none else; doth plainly evidence to me, that infants Churchmembership was but an introduction, type, shadow, fore-runner to Christs manifestation in the flesh, and to cease as John Baptists office did when Christ was exhibited and fully manifested to the world. And accordingly Mr. Bs. questions are answered; the first, that it was heard of before, that upon the comming of Christ believers Churchmembership was to succeed to birth-Churchmembership: To the second, that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them, yet by his comming he alters Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith: The third and fourth are answered by setting down my apprehension, and the Scriptures and reason of it. The fifth I answer affirmatively, the sixth negatively: The seventh, that men and women are not Churchmembers now by birth any more then infants, and in that respect the nature of Churchmembership is the same in both: To the eighth, the Apostle did speak of it, in the places before cited: To the ninth, the silly comforter knows no reason why the Jews broken off should be comforted; but thinks it was matter of comfort to the believing Jews, that in stead of infants visible Churchmembership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish, they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy, the body in stead of the shadow, the Sun risen in stead of the Day-star.

Mr. B. goes on thus. But let us consider a little what is the Church? Is it not the body of Christ? Even all the Church since Adams fall, and the making of a new Covenant is one body of Christ: Even the visible Church is his visible body, as 1 Cor. 12. and many Scriptures fully shew; therefore even the branches not bearing fruit are said to be in him, that is, in his visible body, Joh. 14.1, 2, 3. Now doth Christ break off all infants from his body, that he may come in the flesh to be a greater mercy to them? What's that, but to be a greater mercy then himself, who is the life, and welfare of the body?

Answ. The invisible Church is all one body of Christ; the visible hath had such differences, that one part, to wit, those who feared God, and prayed continually, Acts 10 2. yet had no communion with the other, but were counted unclean, and shunned because uncircumcised, Acts 11▪ 2, 3. The Church of the circumcised, which was by natural birth, is now broken off upon Christs comming; and another Church by faith of all nations is raised; Acts 10.34, 35. in which infants are not till they believe; who though they are of the invisible Church or body of Christ by election, and invisible operation of the spirit, yet are not of the visible till they profess faith in Christ as already come in the flesh, who was the great mercy promised to Abraham, Joh. 8.56. in which he p. 456rejoyced although a great part of his natural seed were broken off▪ and this was a greater mercy then was before exhibited, although then Christ was the life and welfare of the body.

Again, saith Mr. B▪ it seems by this, Mr. T. thinks that excommunication is a great mercy: If all the Jews infants had been excommunicate or cast out of the Church by God himself, it were no more then Christ did in mercy, never bringing them into any other Church in stead.

Answ. Nothing said by me gives any occasion to this imputation: Excommunication, if just, I count a curse; but the non taking of infants into the visible Church Christian hath nothing of a curse in it, it being onelyonly an act of God according to his Soveraignty, who had liberty to appoint who should be of his Church, who not.

Against this strange fiction, saith Mr. B. I argued thus: If ordinarily God shew not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it, then it is not a greater mercy, or for the parties greater good to be put out, then to be in: But ordinarily God sheweth not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it: Therefore it is not for their greater good, nor in greater mercy▪ to be put out. To this Mr. T. answered nothing.

Answ. What need I, when I grant the conclusion? Mr. B. makes a strange fiction of his own, as if I thought excommunication, to be cast out or put out of the Church, a great mercy; and held infants were excommunicated, cast or put out of the Church: Which is far from me, or any thing I say, who do not▪ assert them put out by any judicial sentence, but by a free act of Gods soveraignty left out, for reasons best known to himself, but in part revealed to us.

Mr. B. adds. I argued also thus: …f those that are out of the Church since Christ, have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him, as those in the Church had before Christ, then it is not to them a great mercy to be out of the Church: But those out of the Church since Christ, have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him, as those in the Church had before Christ: therefore it cannot be to them a greater mercy. To this Mr. T. answered, that it is a greater mercy to infants since Christ to be out of the Church, then before to be in it; and that they have as much assurance of mercy from Christ now, as then, (he should say more.)

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

To which, saith Mr. B. I replied thus, If those infants which were in the Church before Christ, had God engaged in an oath and Covenant to be their God, and to take them for his peculiar people, and those infants out of the Church since Christ have no such thing; then they before Christ in the Church had more assurance of mercy then those out of the Church since Christ: p. 457But the former is true, as I proved out of Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. upon which text, what vain altercations there were, and what words were used against the express Letter of the text, you shall see in the relation of the Dispute, if … be called to publish it.

Answ. For my part I shall not consent that Mr. B. publish the relation of the Dispute▪ having found his dealing so injurious to me in that which he hath already done, and his partiality towards his opinion and party. I have looked over two such relations of the Dispute as I could get, and I finde in them that I did deny the minor, and when Mr. B. alledged Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. to prove it, I did distinguish of being God in respect of saving benefits, and thus God is engaged in Covenant to be God to infants now no visible Churchmembers as he was then, to wit to the elect onelyonly, or in respect of outward advantages, such as were peculiar to the nation of the Jews, as that they should possess Canaan, have Gods worship and presence with them in a more special manner then other people, Christ to come out of that people, &c. as Rom. 9.4, 5. the Apostle reckons them, and in this respect it was granted that infants in the Church before Christ had God so engaged, and that neither infants out of the Church Christian, no nor believers in it, no nor all believers afore Christ, such as Cornelius had God so engaged, and that in this respect the oath of God was meant, appeared from v. 13. which saith thus, that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, which appears to be meant of their setling in Canaan and their prosperous state there, as many places evince, where it is mentioned particularly Gen. 12.7. & 13.15. & 15.8. & 17.8. & 22.17. & 26.3. & 28.13, 14. Deut. 34.5, &c. besides many other passages in the same speech of Moses, Deut. 29.16, 21, 23, 24, 27. Deut. 30.2, 5.9, 10, 16, 18. and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30.20. From which passages it is as evident as the light, that the meaning Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. was this, that God did bring into Covenant by Moses (the chief standing for the rest) the whole nation of Israel, that they might for themselves and their posterity unborn binde them to observe the lawes of Moses given in Horeb, and thereby be established a people to God, and he might be a God to them in setling, keeping and prospering them in Canaan, if they did obey. Now Mr. B. asserted that God did covenant with all the little ones and others there present, to be their God, and that in respect of spiritual benefits, and to that end, urged Deut. 30.6. which he made conditional, and to other then the elect. Against which I urged, that [to circumcise the heart] is the same with writing Gods lawes in the heart Heb. 8.10. which Dr. Twiss ▪ rightly concludes to be absolute and to the …lect onelyonly, and that to assert it to be conditional is Pelagianism, and I desired the Auditors to take notice of Mr. Bs. assertion in that thing: I confess I had not time to collect and to produce the texts here mentioned (which was one reason why I was still averse from extemporary verbal disputes) but this was the substance of that …rcation which Mr. B. cals vain, and saith, words were used against the express letter p. 458of the text. Concerning which, although I will not undertake to justifie all I then said, yet the answer I then gave I stil avouch as right, and conceive Mr. Bs. assertion of circumcising the heart, to love the Lord, to belong to other then the elect, and to be conditional to be very erroneous, and refer the reader to Mr. Bs. own words in answer to Mr. Bedford in the Friendly accommodation pag. 361, 362. to discern the errour of it.

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

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

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

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

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

Answ. I grant it, and yet a person may be in Christs house, and a temple to him▪ and not a visible Churchmember.

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

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

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

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

Again, saith he, the Church visible is Christs visible Kingdome: But p. 459it is no mercy to be out of Christs Kingdome; therefore it is no mercy to be out of the Church.

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

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

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

Mr. B. proceeds thus. But let us see what Mr. T. answers to this in his Sermon, which upon deliberation hee afterward preached to confute my arguments, and therefore …anno… lay the blame upon his unpreparedness. And truly in my judgement he doth here plainly throw down his weapons, and give up the whole cause (though not directly confessing his errour: he is not yet so happy:) I were best give you p. 460his own words, lest I be thought to wrong him: they are these; [As for those petty reasons, if it be done, it must bee in mercy or judgement, I say in mercy in respect of the whole Catholike Church now Christ being come, and wee ha…ing a more spiritual churchstate then they had; their churchstate was more carnal and fleshly, and agreeable to their time of minority: It is in mercy that it is taken away. And as for that exception, It cannot be taken away in mercy, unless some priviledge be to them in stead of it▪ We answer, It is in mercy to the whole Church, though no priviledge be to them] So far Mr. Ts. words. I confess I never heard a cause more plainly forsaken, except a man should say flatly, I have erred, or I recant▪ 1. He much altereth the terms of my argument, as you may see by it before. The argument is thus; It can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken away from them, except it be to give a greater in its stead. But here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership; therefore it can be no mercy to them, that it be revoked, or taken away. To call these [petty reasons] is the onelyonly strength of Mr. T. his answer. For I pray you mark. 1. Hee never den…ed the major proposition [that it can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken from them, except they may have a greater in stead:] He could not deny this with any shew of reason: For otherwise, if it be a mercy meerly to deprive the creature of mercy, then wee shall turn hell into heaven, and make it the greatest place of mercies, because none are deprived of mercy so much as they, no nor of this particular mercy: for none are further removed from being members of the Church then the damned.

Answ. It is true finding the boastings concerning Mr. Bs. dispute Janu. 1. 1649. to be many, after my return from Leimster (to which place I was then designed and where I was Janu. 6.) I did though without any copy of the disputation or arguments in writing (which I could not obtain from Mr. B.) as well as my memory could bear them away, in the close of my Afternoons Sermon, Jan. 13. at Bewdley, recite and refute his arguments in the disputation. Wherein it is true I was somewhat more deliberate then in the dispute, yet for want of the arguments in writing, I could not then give so full and exact an answer to his arguments as had been requisite, nor perhaps shall now to this, because Mr. B. doth not plainly set down though requested by me, what that benefit, priviledge, or mercy is, which he conceives annexed to infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed. But that either I throw down my weapons or forsake my cause by my answer then to this argument, is but Mr. Bs. dream. Of what alteration there was of the terms of his argument he must bear the blame, who would not give me his arguments in writing under his own hand; nor am I to be blamed for drawing it so short, being fearful to wrong him by a fuller reciting, And I perceive I had great cause so to do, when I finde Mr. B. himself altering the terms of his own major in a few lines, in the former it is [except it be to give a greater in its stead] in the later [except that they may have a greater in stead] which are not the same. And for my answer▪ if my terming his arguments [petty reasonings] had been mine onelyonly answer, yet it p. 461had been a good and sufficient answer, if this be granted (which I conceive an evident truth) that of Divine institution, (and such is this of visible Churchmembership) there is no reason can be right but what is from Gods own appointment, though it may seem right to us it should be so. Papists argue that if God did not make one oecumenical Bishop (as there was one High Priest among the Jews) to preserve unity, non satis discretu… esset, he should not be discreet enough. Now this seems to our reason plausible, and yet we justly say, that in things positive our reason is deceivable, and Gods appointment onelyonly is to be attended. And so it is in this; though this reason of Mr. B. seem plausible, yet it were no forsaking the cause though I could not answer it any otherwise then thus, It is Mr. Bs. petty reasoning from his own conceits of what he imagines fi… in a matter of meer institution, concerning which it is nevertheless manifest from the History of the New Testament, that God hath appointed otherwise then is Gods way according to his reason; which indeed is but arrogant presumption, when it prescribes to God. But I shall answer his argument more amply: And though I did not deny his major i… the Dispute or Sermon, I say, if it be understood o… a greater mercy in the same kind, and to the same persons, it is not true; the believing Jews were deprived of their possessions in Judea in mercy, yet had not a greater me…cy in the same kind but another in the gifts of the spirit; it was in mercy that the Priests converted to the faith were deprived of their office in the Temple, and their children of the portion of the offerings there, which were mercies to them, and yet no such office or portion provided for them and their children, but the benefit redound…d to the Gentiles converted, whose conversion was prayed for by David, Isaiah &c. and was a mercy to them, though their posterity might be broken off, and the national Church dissolved. I conceive that Gods ways are so free and various in this kind, that Mr Bs. ma…or cannot be universally true, not is Mr. Bs. reason cogent. For suppose God annihilate in mercy, there is no greater mercy given, yet Hell is not turned into Heaven, and made the greatest place of mercies, in this case there is a meer deprivation of mercy in mercy: But the thing is more apparent in deprivations of some temporal benefits. God may deprive in mercy, that is, not in judgement of some temporal benefit meerly because he will, out of his freedome to dispose of his own, yet give no greater mercy in stead of it then he should have had if that had not been taken away; and that God doth not do so, who can say? me thinks the Apostles determination, Rom. 11.34. should satisfie that he doth. And yet Hell should not be the greatest place of mercies, for there is not onelyonly a privation of temporal, but also of spiritual and eternal mercies, and that too with accumulation of torments, which is otherwise in the case proposed. And for the particular mercy of Churchmembership, the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was but a temporal mercy, and a comparative mercy in respect of the nations, it neither certainly assured their eternal, nor present welfare; yea, when Christ came, considering how the nation of the Jews was against Christ, it was then rather their danger then their mercy, and was a recompenced p. 462sufficiently in being out of that Church, which consisted of a rebellious and gainsaying people▪ and being, though not visible Churchmembers in the Christian society, yet in the families where the spirit of God was given, and Christ known.

Mr. B. adds. 2. And observe next, that as Mr T. denieth not the major, so here be plainly grants the minor, and so yeelds the whole cause. For the minor was, [that here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership:] Doth not Mr. T. acknowledge this? when be saith twice over: 1. That it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church (to have their infants put out of the Church:) And so if the mercy be onelyonly to the catholick Church, that they be none of the Church (visible,) then it is not to them a mercy: So that he taketh it to be a mercy onelyonly to others, but none to them, according to this answer. 2. Yea, he saith it more plainly the second time, that it is in mercy to the whole Church, though no priviledge (much less a greater mercy) be to them (to the infants themselves:) So that for my part, I think I may well break off here, and take the whole cause as yeelded. For if it be no mercy to any to be deprived of mercy, except that they may have a greater: And if infants have no greater in stead of this, but onelyonly their parents have a greater: and both these be confessed: then it must follow, that it is no mercy to infants to be deprived of this mercy of their Churchmembership; and consequently, God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good (which is the thing I am proving:) And Mr. T. yeeldeth that it is not taken from them in justice to their hurt: and therefore it is not taken from them at all. And thus you see what is become of the cause that hath been driven on with such confidence.

Answ. However I onelyonly denied the minor in the Dispute and Sermon, yet Mr. B. may see by the answer before, that here I deny his major in the first argument in this chapter, yea, and that he can prove that it is not in justice that the Churchmembership visible Jewish ceased, though I stil adhere to it, that it was in mercy; and of this argument I have here denied the major, though I did not so before, and am ready to shew that I have not yeelded the minor, nor any whit of the cause, and therefore suppose Mr. B. hath need to manage his weapons better ere he gain this cause; yea▪ though he should have this argument yeelded, yet the cause is not gained, for the reason before given. But let us view his minor, and my answer. His minor is [that here is no greater mercy given to infants in stead of Churchmembership,] my answer was, That in mercy to the whole catholick Church the Jewish infant Churchmembership ceased, and therefore the infant visible Churchmembership Jewish in mercy ceased. To understand his minor, it is to be observed that Mr. B. asserts 1. a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership antecedent to that of Circumcision. 2. That this is by promise and precept. 3. That this infant visible Churchmembership essentially contains a right to Gods soveraignty, Christs headship, favour, protection, provision, and other blessings due from such a Soveraign and head to his members. 4. That this belonged not onelyonly to the infants of the Jewish nation, but also of believers in all ages. 5. p. 463That this mercy belonged to the infants of the believers of the Jewish nation when they were made Christians, and so could not be in justice taken from them, though the nation of the Jews were broken off for unbelief. 6. That in mercy it cannot be said to be taken away, without a greater mercy to the infants of believrs in stead of it. 7. That the comming of Christ in the flesh, the extent of the Church over the world through faith, the changing of Churchmembership by birth into that by faith, and so making the Church more spiritual, is not a greater mercy to the infants of Jew believers in stead of that visible Churchmembership. 8. That without visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church catholick, the infants of Jew believers are in worse case then they were in the Jewish Church national. On the contrary, I deny 1. such a law or ordinance. 2. That the Hebrew infant visible Churchmembership was by promise and precept. 3. That this visible Churchmembership contained essentially such a right as Mr. B. asserts; though it was a mercy in comparison of the state of other nations, yet thereto was annexed a heavy yoke of legal impositions, the deliverance from which was a mercy, and in this respect it was in mercy not continued to believers infants of the Jewish nation. 4. That it belonged to any other infants then of the Hebrew people. 5. I assert that when the Jewish nation or Hebrew people were broken off for unbelief in Christ; visible Churchmembership of infants was in justice taken away from the whole people, and consequently from the infants of Jew believers, who were onelyonly visible Churchmembers as a part of that nation, yet in mercy to them sith their visible Churchmembership in that nation was dangerous to them, yea inconsistent with Christianity, the Jewish nation being a rebellious and gainsaying people: as it was a mercy for Lot to be in Sodom, and he was in justice to the place outed; and yet in mercy to himself, when it was to be destroyed. 6. I assert, that it might be truly said that the infant Jewish visible Churchmembership may be said to be taken away in mercy …rom the infants of believers of that nation, though no greater mercy were given to those particular infants of the same kind barely in stead of it. 7. I assert, that it cannot be said to be taken away in justice from infants of believing Gentiles, sith it was never granted to any Gentile nation to be Gods visible Church, nor were their infants visible Churchmembers, except by proselytism they were incorporated into the Jewish people. 8. I assert, that the not taking in of believing Gentiles infants into the visible Church Christian was not an act judiciary of God as a Judge, but Gods free act of soveraignty changing Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith. 9. I assert, that the comming of Christ in the flesh, and the consequents thereof, the breaking down the partition wall, taking in the Gentiles by faith, &c. without taking in infants into the visible Church Christian, were greater me…cies then the Jewish infant Churchmembership (which was clogged with legal burdens, and was an imperfect state) and did abundantly countervail the Jewish infant visible Churchmembership in the best state of that, and did bring as much benefit to infants as that relation did. 10. That the infants of p. 464believing Gentiles no members of the visible Church Christian are not in worse but be…ter condition, in respect of any real Evangelical blessing, then the Hebrew infants were with their Churchmembership. 1. Because the spiritual blessings of regeneration, in dwelling of the spirit▪ justification, remission of sins, adoption, Gods favour, protection, provision, eternal life, are as much assured to them in infancy without visible Churchmembership, as they were with it. 2. They do actually enjoy sooner these mercies, if in the invisible Church (without which none ever enjoyed them) and in more ample m…nner without Jewish visible Churchmembership, then they did with it, the spirit being now more powred out, the G…spel cleared, the Ch…rch enl…rged, onelyonly legal ceremonies, and rest in Canaan wit… prosperity therein being taken away. Mr. B. and the reader hereby may fully understand what I deny, and what I grant, and how I answer this his petty reasoning without yeelding the cause, and when he hath refuted these ass…rtions, le… him sing his triumph, and not as he vainly and insolently doth afore the victory.

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

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

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

Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership p. 465by faith, and as a mercy to the catholick Church; For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances, which infants are partakers of in actual possession, and capable of the spirit, though they be not actually visible churchmembers; and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual churchstate. And Mr. B. doth much mistake, as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit: For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church, yet none of them were given of it in Christs time, they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peo…le, a generation of vipers, denied the holy one, and the just, and desired a murtherer, made the temple a den of theeves, &c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church, then to be of theirs. As for the Jews who believed not, they were justly put out of Gods favour, their temple was destroyed, and they cast out of their land for denying Christ: Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually; for they adhere to it unto this day, and it is their curse.

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

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

But he further demands, Or what doth he mean by churchstate? whether the essential nature of the Church it self? or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it? Is not this word [churchstate] like his former of [church call] devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities, and signifying what pleaseth the speaker.

Answ. Neither the term [Church state] nor [Church call] were devised by me, but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines. I have shewed the use of the later before, and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it, and that according to Mr. B. himself: And for the former, me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it, who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher, intituled, De visibilis Ecclesiae successient & statu. And to imagine it to be devised p. 466to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises, when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it; and if it signifie what pleases the speaker, it is so much the better, for that is the use of words; and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities, if it signifie; for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light, and not darken with ambiguities: So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation, that his later words cross his former. And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can, I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self, nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it; but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence, whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying, numerous or small, rich in knowledge or poor, carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith, more or less of the spirit, the promises, ministery, rites, &c. it hath. Which term [state] comprehends innumerable terms, such as are rich and poor, noble or ignoble, fat or lean, and many more; which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality, relation, or passion, or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine, I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech. But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions, which he must not expect I will answer, as I have done, after this bout.

5. Saith he, And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture, that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched? These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause, when themselves give us but their magiste…ial dictates. But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream. What? are infants such …ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years, that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out? Are not the aged worse then they? And were we not once all infants?

Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church, and so need not prove it; nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer, but for Mr. B. to disprove it. Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down, not without some proof from Scripture; and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture, or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions, and vain exclamations, which I resolve to neglect. And of the former sort are the questions here, which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members, because they are Toads, Vipers, worse then the aged; whereas I onelyonly say, that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national (in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers, and no otherwise) was in mercy to the catholick Church: Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle, Rom. 11.11, 12. that through their fall salvation p. 467is come to the Gentiles, the fall of them is the riches of the world, the diminishing, decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles. Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men; but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people (of which the infants were a part, and onelyonly Churchmembers there, and while that nation were Gods Church;) partly through Gods contrivance, which was, that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off, and at last both have mercy in their season.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But yet nearer; saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers, yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their p. 468children put out of the Church: Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children? and doth grace increase it? and the Scripture encourage it? and yet must they take it for a mercy, that their children are put out? when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children.

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

Yet further, saith he, why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed? as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children; if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church▪ may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did? His bloud be on us and our children. For their curse is to be broken off from the Church; and if that be a mercy, the Jews are then happier then I take them to be: And how can we then pray, that they may be graffed in again?

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

6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true? Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out; yet it doth not follow that God would do it. He is the God of infants, as well as of the aged; and is mercifull to them as well as others; all souls are his: He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants: And his mercy is over all his works.

Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh, yet he hath not p. 469mercy on all flesh; all souls are his, yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish; his mercy is over all his works, yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people; he is naturally mercifull, yet sheweth mercy freely as he will. I say not, he casteth out all infants of the Church out of the Church; yet sure if it were supposed a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out, it seems to follow that God would do it, sith all things work for their good, and with his son he gives them all things, Rom. 8.28, 32. 1 Cor. 3.22, 23.

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

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

He adds. But he saith [that it was a priviledge to the Jews to be owned as Gods people distinct from the rest of the world, while others were passed by, yet this is repealed in mercy to us Gentiles.] Answ. In my distinctions before you may find this answered. 1. Then it p. 470was no mercy to the Jews you think, but to us Gentiles: But our question is, whether it be a mercy to the unchurched infants? 2. The Jews being a Church and people of God, was a mercy; and this God took not from any of them, but those that cast it away: But the restraction of this to them, and the exclu…on of the Gentiles, was no mercy to them, and this onelyonly (with the ceremonial accidents) did God take away by the charge of his Laws. It would have been rather an ad…i…ion to the happiness of the believing Jews, to have the Gentiles taken in, by taking down the partition wall: And so it will be when the Jews are graffed in again, and both made one body. Why else doth the Jewish Church pray for her little sister that had no breasts? And Noah pray, that God would perswade Japhet to dwell in the tents of Sem? Though the restriction therefo…e and the exclusion (which are no mercies to the Jews) be taken away, yet no mercy i… taken from them, but what is supplied with a far grea…er in Christ: And though they partake not of these, yet that is because of their o…n unbelief, who reject it, and not because the new law doth exclude them: For God hath in his new law or Covenant made a deed of gift of Chri… and all his benefits, to all that will receive him, whether Jew or Gentile, without excluding or excepting any. And for his denying to particular persons the grace of conversion, that is nothing to our present business, as belonging to decree, and not to any change in the laws: And it was denied to many before Christ, and granted to many thousands Jews since Christ; and shall be at last to far more.

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

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

p. 471Answ. Let my answer and Mr. Bs. argument be compared, and the Reader judge of our ingenuity. I for my part hope and pray that God will never leave me to be carried away with such frivolous reasonings as these of Mr. B. are.