Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 50
SECT. L. The fifth Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture proof &c. Part. 1. is examiand the texts Gal. 4.1, &c. Matth. 28.19. cleered so as to prove infants now no visible Church-members.
CH. 5. he begins thus. Though I have many and clear a…guments from the new Testament, to prove infants to be members of the visible Church, as I shall let you see, God willing, when I come to them; yet because I think it most orderly to take them before us from the beginning, I wi…l first fetch one from the old Testament, and that such as is fully confirmed from the new: For I hope you are none of those who have wiped out all the old Testament from your Bibles, or that presently look upon a text as no text, if you hear it come from the old Testament.
Answ. I Know none at Bewdley so erroneous or foolish. But Mr. B. may see (if his high soaring meditations and studies will allow him time to descend to view such a low argument, as hee oft disdainfully speaks) something written in the 2d. part of this Review, Sect. 2, 3. which tends to prove that no good argument can be drawn from the old Testament for his admission of infants visible Church members. And for his many and clear arguments from the New Testament to prove infants to be members of the visible Church; he did wisely put in the caution, God willing when I come to them I shall let you see them, to save his credit, though he never shew them. For my part I despair of ever seeing them. As for those I have found brought by him, the chief have been examined in the first and second Part of this Review, and found impertinent. The dispute that remains to be viewed is so immethodical, that had Mr. B. ever been bred up in Schools, I am confident he would have been ashamed of it. But I must now follow him in his own track.
I therefore, saith he, argue thus; First, If by the merciful gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church, then some infants are to be so admitted still: But by the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church: therefore they are so to be admitted still.
Answ. Mr. B. pag. 24. plainly saith, that by [admitting] he means solemn admitting, that since baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way, that as a souldier before listing, and as a King before crowning and taking his oath, so are we and infants Church-members before baptism: He saith pag. 26. of this argument, I will first fetch you one from the Old Testament. Whence 1. it is apparent that his visible Church membership and admitting visible Church-members, are not the same. 2. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of visible Church-membership is not a…l one with the merciful gift and appointment of God of admission of visible Church-members. 3. That a merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting visible Church-members, is by some solemn rite. Which is confirmed in that he speaks of admitting visible Church-members, as a duty to be performed by some persons, as when he saith ch. 4. ought to be admitted visible Church members, and in this place were once to be admitted visible Church-members. Visible Church-membership might be and was a gift of God, not a duty, (which is some action to be done by man) but a state or relation resulting from the foundation, or cause, or reason of it. Now if Mr. B. cannot shew (as I am confident he cannot) any other gift or appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church members in the old Testament unrepealed, besides that of circumcision, then either his antecedent (as hee terms it) must be meant of it, or else he mocks the people of God with a pretended merciful gift and appointment of God of admitting infants visible Church-members unrepealed, which is no where extant, but is fained by himself to delude them: and if it be that of Ci…cumcision, then his minor asserts the appointment of Circumcision, and h…s conclusion is, that our infants are still to be circumcised. Nor can I, with all my enquiry and study, conceive (if he had understood himself) he could mean any other. For by his making admission solemn, comparing it with listing of a Souldier, crowning of a King, it is manifest that he understood it of a solemn Rite; and speaking of it as a thing that ought to be, he must mean it of an act to be performed by man; and limiting it now to Baptism, he intimates it was by some Rite answerable to Baptism heretofore, which I hardly think any learned man but would conceive must be meant of Circumcision and no other, sith no o…her was appointed by God to infants for admission of them as visible Church-members. It is true, he often, when I pressed him in the Dispute to speak plainly whether he meant by his appointment or Law unrepealed that of Circumcision, did deny it, and distinguished between the Law of infants visible Church-membership and that of Circumcision; but he never shewed me a Law of infants admission as visible Church members besides it. And in his arguments whereby he proves the not repealing, he concludes about the not repealing of the Law of infants visible Church-membership, not of their admission. Of which fallacy I had in the Dispute some obscure apprehension, and therefore pressed him so often to speak plainly, and told him he must mean it of Circumcision, (which fact of mine Mr. B. did in the Dispute, and doth here ch. 23. represent as defective in tenderness of conscience, fear of God, love of truth, charity to a brother, common modesty, after his usual fashion of making out-cries without cause,) but could not then c…ear it, having not then so well understood his opinion, nor his shifting of the terms, nor being able to shew it for want of a Notary, and time to view his arguments, he being also very quick in urging and pressing me to answer, without allowing time to weigh his arguments: and therefore after much altercation concerning his meaning, gave way to his proof of the Law of visible Church-membership unrepealed, and neglected to keep him to the proof of the Law of admission unrepealed, to mine and the Causes great disadvantage. Whether Mr. B. did fraudulently or ignorantly manage the Dispute, belongs to God to judge; though I must needs say, that I did then, and do still suspect he was not free from deceit, or dolus malus in it: finding in a Copy I have of the Dispute, That he distinguished then between visible Church membership and admission. As for my self, had I perceived so clearly as now I do, his mind about the kind of visible Church-membership and admission of infants he asserts, I should have stuck to this, That though infants could have been proved visible Church members, according to the Law he pretends unrepealed; yet were they not to be admitted by Baptism, which is appointed onelyonly for visible Church-members by profession of faith: And therefore whereas he saith he contends more for infants visible Church membership then Baptism, and makes tha… the very heart of the controversie, I conceive otherwise, and do let him understand, that were it not that I know that he hath very much abused me and others in that which follows, I should think my tenet not overthrown, nor much regard it, though his Law of infants visible Church-membership were yeelded, and my answer to his arguments omitted. But sith things are as they are, I resolve to go on.
The Antecedent (saith he) hath two parts. 1. That by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church: This is as far beyond all doubt as you can expect. 1. Mr. T. granted it in his publick Dispute: and so he doth in his Apology, pag. 66. where he saith [I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews, the infants were reckoned to the Church] yet lest any should be so impudent as to deny it, I briefly prove it thus. 1. If infants were part of them that entred into Covenant with the Lord God, and into his Oath, that he might stablish them for a people to himself, and he might be to them a God; then infants were part of the Church: But the former is plain, in Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. to any that will read it. Therefore infants were part of the Church.
Answ. What I did I still grant, that infants were part of the Jewish Church, and were circumcised; but the conclusion Mr. B. infers from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is not that which Mr. B. should prove. For it is not all one to say, Infants were part of the Church, and by Gods mercifull gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church. Nor doth Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. prove either infants were part of the Church, or their admission. Their entring into Covenant was not by any act of their own, but by the Elders or parents, who in like manner Covenanted for the unborn, v. 15. who could not thereby be visible Church-members, being not then existent; and therefore the Covenant there made them not vis…ble Church-members. Nor is there any proof of their admission thence, they were admitted either after or before, the Covenanting was not their admission, for admission is the act of some person that hath that trust or office commited to him; but their Covenanting was the p…rsons own act, and if it did admit the infants, then it did admit the parents, Elders, Captains, and so they did admit themselves, which is absurd; and the establishing them for a people to himself, is no more then as Piscator rightly Schol. in Deut. 29.13. That he might require from thee the worship of himself by obedience towards his precepts, and so may binde thee to himself. So the obligation of the people precedes, and he might be to thee a God, that is may in like manner promise to thee that he will follow thee with his grace, and do thee good and so make thee happy. So Gods promise followes. It was a Covenant neither to make nor admit them visible Church members, but to engage them to obedience, and to assure them thereupon of protection and blessing: and this extended to their posterity v. 15. who could not be then visible Church-members, or admitted then as being not existent.
2. Saith Mr. B. If infants were engaged to God by the seal of his Covenant (Circumcision) then they were members of his Church: But some infants were so engaged: therefore they were Church members; this is all undeniable. I never yet met with any that denied either.
Answ Circumcision is not stiled in Scripture the seal of the Covenant, but I grant that infants were members in the Jewish Church visible, admitted by Circumcision, and engaged thereby though not by their own act, yet according to Gods injunction and severe exaction to keep the Law, and t…is is the onelyonly proof of their admission Mr. B. brings out of the old Testament. He adds,
3 If infants were part of those that were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea, and drank the spiritual drink, even of that rock which was Christ, then sure they were part of the visible Church: But the antecedent is plain 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. They were all baptized, &c.
Answ. I deny the antecedent to be plain, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, 3. and have proved the contrary to be true, in the 2d. part of this Review Sect. 21. whither I refer the Reader:
4. Saith he, the Martyr Stephen calleth that assembly, whereof they were members [the Church in the Wilderness] Acts 7.38. Therefore they were Church members.
Answ. The conclusion and proof is granted, but I observe that the conclusion to be proved is altered from this [by Gods merciful gift and appointment, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church] into this [infants were Church members, part of the visible Church.]
The 2d. part of his antecedent, which he saith is the onelyonly thing I deny, and which the whole weight of this argument lieth on, is [that this merciful gift of God to infants, and ordinance of Church membership is not repealed] and he saith he hath here the negative, and the proof lies not on him yet he will examine my proofs, and then prove the negative by a multitude of evident arguments from the Scripture, that he hath shewed Scripture not questioned for it, and that he may justly expect plain Scripture or argument to prove the repeal of that Law.
Answ. He hath shewed no plain Scripture, nor any argument for a Law or Ordinance that infants are, were or shall be visible Church-members of which I need prove a repeal, though I grant he hath proved a Law or Ordinance for the admission of infants by Circumcision, which is the onelyonly Law or Ordinance I finde in him, either for infants visible Church-membership or their admission, and if he hold it unrepealed, I can quickly prove the contrary. Nevertheless I follow him in his wild goose race.
And first, saith he, I expected some plain Scripture. 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onelyonly that can prove the repeal of any part of his word, and mens reasonings may as likely prove vain in this as any thing, if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture. And 2. because I deal with those men that call for plain Scripture proof of infant baptism from us: therefore did I over, and over, and over, desire Mr. T. to bring some word of God to prove the repeal of infants Church-membership. But what text do you think he brought? In his publike dispute he never offered to name one text: nay, in his sermon which he preached after upon deliberation, he never offered to name one text in all the Bible, to prove that God hath repealed infants Church-membership. Is not this enough to make his cause suspicious? Nay, I am confident he cannot bring one text for it.
Answ. And I have long expected from Mr. B. some plain Scripture in which I might see any such Law or Ordinance distinct from Circumcision for infants visible Church-membership and admiss…on, which I might consider wh…ther it be repealed or no…, or capable of a repeal or not. 1. Because it must be a plain word of God onelyonly that can prove such a law, and mens reasonings (as it will appear in the examining them Mr. Bs. are) may as likely prove as vain in this as any thing, if they be not grounded upon plain Scripture. And 2. because I deal with those men, particularly Mr. B. that pretend plain Scripture proof for infants Church membership and Baptism, but to those that justly call for such, bring no express precep… or example of infants baptism in the N. T. (which alone can be counted plain Scripture p…oof in this thing) but consequences from Circumcision and the Jewish Church-state, which have no validity but on the grant of such suppositions as are false; yea in these mens disputes against Papists, and Prelates, and others, are rejected; and yet they are so extreme blinde as to think, and so impudent as to bear the people in hand, these are plain Scripture proofs of infants Church-membership and Baptism. And therefore did I over and over and over desire Mr. B. to bring me some word of God for such a law. But what text do you think he brought? In his publike dispute he never once offered to name one text: nay, in his Praesest. morator sect. 6. printed some few years after upon deliberation he brings none, though pressed by me in my Praecursor. Nevertheless, sith M.B. forceth me to it, I determine, as I have done to others, so to si… Mr. Bs. allegations foreign. He goes on in his venemous way thus.
What if Mr. T. should use Magistrates as he doth infants (as former Anabaptists have done) hath he not as good ground? and would they take it well? May he not as well say, when I shew him Scripture in the old Testament for Magistrates in the Church, and being Gods people [that it was from the peculiar state of the Jews: God hath set up no Magistrates of Christians in the Church now] would not our Magistrates bid him bring some Scripture to prove the repeal, or else they shall take their old Testament Commission for currant? and let him bring me any more Scripture to prove the repeal of infants visible Church-membership, then is brought to prove the repeal of Magistrates in the Church if he can: (O how just is it with God, that those Magistrates who favour, countenance and cherish those men, that would keep all Christians infants out of the Church, should by the same men be put out themselves, both of Church and State?)
Answ. What Anabaptists in former times did or held, it is hard to say, sith we have the narration of their facts and tenents onelyonly from their adversaries. Notwithstanding Augustines reckoning Jovinian among heretiques, and Hieromes invectives against Vigilantius, yet learned Protestants have excused or defended both. Dr. Reynold Conference with Hart, ch. 5. div. 3. Jewels defence of the Apol. Field of the Church book ch. 30, 31. Cracanthorp vindic. Eccl. Anglic. contra Spalat. Andr. Revet. sum. contr. tom. 1. quest. 1. &c. Mr. B. himself would not pass without a deep censure, if the writings of Mr. Crandon, Mr. Eyre, Dr. Kendal, &c. should bee taken for good proof of his tenets. It is much harder, and indeed a most injurious thing, that the conceived opinions and practises of men of former times, should be charged on Antipaedobaptists now who do disclaim them. And as for this spiteful passage of Mr. B. though I have said enough to answer it in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 3. yet I add. That I have not so good ground to deny Christian Magistracy as infants visible Church-membership, that I have Scripture to prove the repeal (if it must bee so called) of the pretended visible Church-membership of infants, which was onelyonly in the Jewish national Church now dissolved, and another frame erected by Christ: but not so of the Magistracy which was not proper to the Jewish people. Melchisedech was a King, Job was a Magistrate Job 29, &c. Civil Magistracy as the power of Parents, and Masters, are of the law of nature and nations, Christ and his Apostles did not alter the state of Magistracy, but left them as they found them, and confirmed them; sundry converted Governours kept their place after conversion: bu… the visible Church-membership of infants was onelyonly in the Jewish Church, the frame of which is quite altered by Christ and his Apostles, and not the least hint given of any infants being in or solemn admission into the Christian visible Church, but much to the contrary in the new Testament. We keep infants out of the Church no otherwise then Christ and his Apostles did, and if Magistrates do favour, countenance and cherish us in this, they do but cherish us in the doing of what the Apostles of Christ did, and M.B. that doth animate the Magistrates to molest us, and in his 7th. humble advice to the Parliament Decemb. 24. 1654. would have us deprived of all Pastoral Cure having the publique maintenance, doth shew his minde to persecute us, and by his grounds had conceived himself bound in conscience to have dealt so with the Apostles, if hee had been in their dayes. But O how good is God to us, and just to him and such as he is, that the madness of such a Balaam is rebuked, his advice rejected as injurious, and pernicious, tending to take away that liberty of examining things rece…ved, and to impose on mens consciences new subscriptions and conformities, as intollerable as those the Prelates urged, and consequently shutting out light from shining, and inducing persecution afresh; and that he and such as he is, who are partial in Gods law, prophaning, yea quite changing or dissolving the prime solemn ordinance of Christ, and opposing (contrary to their solemn Covenant) the reformation of that abuse, should be made contemptible before all the people! Mal. 2.9.
Mr. B. adds, yet in private I confess he cited two texts to prove the repeal of Gods Ordinance and merciful gift, that infants should be Church-members: and I will read the two places to you (which private conference I would not mention, but lest it should be thought a wrong to him to overpass his onelyonly proofs) The first was Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. when I considered that such a man should deny all infants Church-membership, and affirm that God hath repealed that his Ordinance, and merciful gift, and have no more Scripture for it then such as this, and yet be so confident, it maketh me amazed. Hath he not a good wit, that can prove that Christ hath repealed his merciful gift, because he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage? or that he hath shut out all infants from his Church, because he hath delivered them from the inconveniences of their minority? If I had no better proof then this for infant baptism, I should be ashamed once to open my mouth for it.
Answ. Had Mr. B. any true love, or justice towards me, as he seems to have by his pretended loathness to mention my private conference, he had not so often and with such false calu…niatory inferences mentioned in his writings what past in private conference concerning my censure of mens not receiving the doctrine of Antipaedobaptism, my plea for plurality of places, &c. whereby he hath done what in him lay, to defame me as proud covetous, schismatical, and given over by God to a reprobate minde, though there was no necessity of such divulgings. But much experience hath taught me to expect no better usage from an intemperate Zelot for his opinion, though a pretended friend and seeming godly, then from an open enemy. Mr. B. is amazed that I alledged Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. as I did, and but that I have learned nil admirari of such passages, I should be amazed at his dealing with me, in setting down my proofs, though they were but in a private conference without study. The thing of which he urged me to prove the repeal, I remember not whether it were of the visible Church-membership of infants, or of their admission. The latter was it, the repeal of which he denied; For so was his antecedent [By the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed, some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church] and this is proved plainly from Gal. 4.1, &c. that the ordinance of admission (which was no other then circumcision) of infants is repealed; yea, if that explication of Beza, Legem enim (id est totam illam legalem oeconomiam) dicit fuisse instar tutoris sive curatoris ad certum tempus dati, thus Englished in the New Annot. For hee saith that the law, that is the whole Government of Gods house according to the law, was as it were a kinde of tutorship or office of an Overseer appointed for a time, be right, the Church-membership visible of infants (which was peculiar to the Jews, and belonged to the legal Church-state) is plainly limited in that place to a certain time now expired, and consequently the ordinance of such Church-membership (if there had been such) repealed. And I say, that if he had so good proof for his infant baptism, as this is for the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants admission and visible Church-membership unrepealed, I would plead for it as he doth. But Mr. B. as one that ha…h a good wit, can by his Chymistry prove hence his non repeal.
Nay, saith he, I pray you do but consider, whether his own proof be not sufficient against him … Doth not this text plainly tell us, that the heir in his minority is Lord of all? and so approve of the natural birth priviledge of our children in civil things? And will God then deny children to be heirs of any thing, and bereave them of their spiritual or Church-priviledge, and neither tell us why he doth it, nor that he doth it.
Answ. Gods heirs are but co-heirs with Christ▪ Rom. 8 17. true believers or elect persons, who are not deprived by me of any truely so called spiritual Church priviledge. The priviledge of infants visible Church-membership as it came with the spiri…ual Church-state of Abrahams family, so it ceased with the dissolution thereof, of which God hath given us reason in that it was but for an appointed time by God, which as it began with Gods special love to Abraham; so it ended upon his loathing his unbelieving posterity, and setting his love on the Gentiles.
Again, saith he, more plainly: if Christ came to free the heir from his bondage and tutorage onelyonly, and from the servitude of his minority; is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-membership? Can any man think that this was any part of the …ondage? require those whose consciences are not wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits, to judge of this soberly, whether they can possibly think it a bondage to be a member both of the universal Church and of a particular! Let them not here tell me that Circumcision was a bondage▪ or that the Law was a Tutor; For I speak of none of these, but of their being members of the Church of God.
Answ. Whom Mr. B. means by person whose Consciences are wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits I cannot determine, I know few men who give me more cause of fear that they are such then Mr. B. who seems to me to have more conceits and …ancies then one, and those with so much pertinacy and violent zeal promoted, as (me thinks) searce agree to a sober man. For my self I say, that such a visible Church-membership as the infants of the Jews had, in my soberest judgement, I not onelyonly can possibly think (which Mr. B. himself also may do, sith it implies no contradiction) but do verily think to have been a part of the imperfect state of the Church, and in some respect of the bondage. For though Churchmembership be a priviledge of it self, yet comparatively, and in respect of some consequents attending it, as namely subjection to the whole Law of Moses, it is a manifest imperfection and bondage. As the state of the Apostles was a state of minority, bondage, imperfection, while Christ was on earth in comparison of the estate after his ascension, when the spirit was powred out upon them John 16, 7. And I doubt not to affirm that Christ came to free his whole Church from that visible Churchmembership it had then, by natural descent, and consequently to alter the visible, Church membership of infants into a more perfect way, by setting up a Church throughout the world, not by carnal descent in one nation, but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ, through the pre…ching of the Gospel. And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law, it's bondage and Tutorage (whether it like him or not) sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church, whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law. Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means, besides that of Circumcision, and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed.
3. Yet further, saith he, when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law, and the bondage of minority, is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before? and hath advanced us in his family, as the Heir at age is advanced? And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family? Christs Church is his family; and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family? Why may he not as well say, that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ? Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm, that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ, that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state, and made members of a far better Church, then that particular Church of the Jews was.
Answ. It is true, Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before, and that is the reason why infants are left out (I say not cast out) of his visible Church. For whereas the particular Church of the Jews (in which alone infants were visible Church-members) was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God, and was by descent of birth, and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth; it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual, consisting onelyonly of them who owned Christ as their Lord; and therefore till infants do so, they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle, it being agreeable to his scope, if they will speak rightly: And the body of the Jewish nation, I mean the greatest or most considerable part, if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized, their children being not baptized till they professed, had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared. Mr. B. adds.
4. And if any yet say, that it is not the infants, but onelyonly the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state, is not this text plain against him? For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law; and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law? And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law, yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age; (yet I can prove, that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity, Act. 3. last.) And now judge I pray, whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership.
Answ. That which I say is, that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved, a Church of a better constitution is by God erected, and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state, that is, from carnal to spiritual, which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian, till they be disciples or believers: and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents, sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law, which were their bondage. Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed: For it follows not, redemption is extended to those that were under the Law, therefore to each individual, or to each species or age, the term being indefinite, and the speech true if any under the Law, and those of one species or age be redeemed; as in like sort, when God is said to choose the poor, the weak things of this world, this proves not universal election of the poor, or weak, sith the terms being indefinite, they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter. I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption, Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law, all are under the Law, Ergo. To which I answered by denying the minor, producing Gal. 4.21. Rom. 6.14, &c. though I might h…ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all. But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law, it will follow, that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew, for they were under the Law, and then it will follow tha… the Jews were universally redeemed that they might re…eive the adoption of sons. And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis, Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5. concerning which, besides what I have said before, Sect. 33, 34, 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings, Provoc. provocatus in answer to Boatman, ch. 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption; conditional Covenant. Two Covenants, one absolute, another conditional, are notions in Divinity I do not understand, and think them hardly reconcilable to truth, (if to sense,) they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's pla…e, as to reconciling us and Arminians, and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion. But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities, Acts 3. last, in the sense he can prove (as he thinks) that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person, do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onelyonly for universal redemption conditionally, but also for universal conversion conditionally. Which if true, then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity, Acts 3.26. conditionally; and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will, he must hold universal grace of conversion, and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will, which is indeed the venome of Arminianism. Which if Mr. B. hold (as his words import) I may well say he stands on pitifull ground, a very quagmire, however men judge of my proof from Gal. 4.1. &c. of the repeal of the pretended ordinance of infants Church-membership.
Mr. B. proceeds. But one Text more was named, and that is my Text, Matth. 28.19, 20. Go disciple all nations, &c. Is not this brave proving the repeal before mentioned? What saith this Text to any such matter?
Answ. The first question hath so much insolent folly, that I think fit to give no answer to it. To the second I say, 1. This Text compared with Mark 16.15. proves, that Christ appointed after his resurrection, that his Church should be gathered in all nations by preaching the Gospel, and baptizing, and no otherwise; and consequently, the Church not gathered this way is not agreeable to Christs institution. The forepart of the antecedent is plain; For as Pareus rightly paraphraseth the words, Com. in Mat. 28.19. Christs words have this sense, Make to me Disciples, gather to me a Church among all nations by your preaching bringing them to the faith of the Gospel. And Piscat. observ. Matth. 28.19. By the coherence of the sentences it is signified, first by the doctrine of the Gospel the nations were to be brought into the Church, then to be baptized when they should enter into the Church and profess the faith. And that neither the institution of Christ, nor practise of the N. T. allows any other way of gathering the Church, is proved in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 5. &c. 2. I say this Text excludes infants from being baptized, as is proved in the same place, and consequently from being visible members of the Christian Church. The antecedent is confirmed from Mr. Bs. words, Plain Scrip. proof, &c. against Mr Bed. pag. 299, 300. where he proves from Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.16. &c. That in the institution and every example of Baptism through all the Bible, the first grace is pre-requisite as a condition, which he makes to be faith included in the term [Disciple.] The consequence is also proved from Mr. Bs. assertion, Plain Scrip. proof, &c. Par. 1. ch. 5. pag. 24, 25. and elsewhere, proved from Mat. 28.19. All visible Ch…rch members are to be baptized. Whence I infer, All visible members of the Christian Church are to be baptized. No infant is to be baptized. Therefore no infant is a visible member of the Christian Church. Now if no infants are now visible members of the Christian Church, and the Church which is gathered without making Disciples by preaching the Gospel first to them, and then baptizing them, is not agreeable to Christs institution, then Christ hath repealed the gift and ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants. I expect now some brave answer from Mr. B. to these plain arguments without any bravery. But what do I meet with.
Nay, saith he, I am confident the contrary will be proved from this Text also: For if it be nations that must be discipled and baptized, certainly all infants can never be excluded, but must needs some of them at least be included. I do not believe that men were to be made Disciples by force; nor that all were Disciples when the King or greater part were so: But that the Apostles commission was to disciple nations; this is their work which they should endeavour to accomplish: and therefore this was a thing both possible and desirable: therefore when the parents are by teaching made Disciples, the children are thereby discipled also: As if a woman escape drowning, the child in her body escapes thereby, yet this is not by any natural cause, but by force of Gods grant or Covenant.
Answ. Though Mr. Bs. confidence, and his foolish admirations and exclamations have taken much with the shallow and heedless both Ministers and people of this age, yet they appear ridiculous to me. His speeches in this place are but dictates, that if nations be to be discipled, infants cannot be excluded; that because they were to endeavour the discipling all nations, therefore infants; that when the parents are by teaching made Disciples, the children are discipled also: all which I deny, and have demonstrated to be false so fully in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 5. &c. that I shall as soon expect the snow be proved black, as any of them proved by Mr. B. or any other. His similitude is frivolous, no child being included in the parent in respect of discipling, as the child in the womb is in respect of drowning. If it were, then also in respect of baptizing, so that if the mother with child be baptized, the child also is baptized as wel as discipled, and then baptism of such infants after would be rebaptization. Such a grant or Covenant, by force of which infants are made Disciples is a meer figment. If infants were made Disciples by a Covenant, it must be of God to them, wherein he promiseth it to them upon their parents bei…g discipled; and if so, then they are discipled ere they be born, and consequently not made Disciples by the Apostles, and so no part of the nation to be discipled by them, nor they to endeavour their discipling unless they should actum agere, do what is already done; whence it will follow, that they had no commission to disciple or baptize infants, for they had no commission to disciple by Gods Covenant, or to baptize such Disciples, but those who were made by their preaching Disciples; and as Mr Collings saith truly in his Provoc. provoc. ch. 5. pag. 54. The Apostles notwithstanding that precept, Matth. 28.19, 10. did not think themselves obliged to baptize any, but such as believed and confessed their sins Mr. B. adds.
When all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron were turned to the Lord, the whole cities, infants and all, were discipled.
Answ. Though our last translation read Acts 9.35. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord; yet in the Greek, and agreeably the vulgar, Beza, &c. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, who turned to the Lord; which seems to import, that all they who turned to the Lord saw him, and so [they that saw him] is limited by [them turned to the Lord,] which is not to be said of infants. But were the reading retained as it is in our last translation, yet it is a gross conceit of Mr. B. to apply this to infants. For it is said of these, 1. That they saw Aeneas cure. 2. That they were converted to the Lord. 3. That by seeing the cure of Aeneas they were moved to turn to the Lo…d, as Piscator in his Sch…lie saith, to wit, moved by t…e miraculous healing of Aeneas by Peter. Now to affirm these thing… of infants, is in my apprehension (however it be in Mr. Bs.) against common sense. Besides me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant that fre…uently in the Scripture such expressions wherein the word [all] is used; are limited to a greater part, and those of years the matter so requiring it, as Matth. 2.3. & 3.5. Acts 8.10, &c. Mr. B. adds.
How can Christ bid them, Go and disciple all Nations, if infants and so all the Nation are utterly uncapable of being disciples? or how will Mr. T. expound the word all nations?
Answ. Had Mr. B. heeded the words of the 13. Section of the first part of my Examen, or the 14th. section of the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Bl. he might have found answer to these questions. But I conceive upon very probable signes Mr. B. never studied my writings, but lightly read them, and I finde he hath dealt with me in like manner concerning my answers in the dispute at Bewdley, and such passages as he excepts against which fell from me in private conference, and that this is the reason of these and many more unnecessary questions he puts me to answer. But if the Reader please to read the 2d. part of t…is Review sect. 5, &c. he may see a full answer to these questions, the sum whereof is this; that Christ bids them Go, and by preaching the Gospel Mark. 16.15. make disciples of or out of all nations, and then baptize them, who by believing the Gospel became disciples, Mark. 16.16. which may and must be understood with exclusion of infants, as when he bids them preach the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16.15. & Col 1.23. it was preached to every creature under heaven, yet no infant meant. And by way of retortion, I do s…riously ask Mr. B. how he will expound the word all nations? and how Christ can bid them disciple infants without making Christ a fool and a tyrant in commanding that which is ridiculous and impossible?
Mr B saith of me further. He oft saith, It is here one and there one out of a city or nation that God will call: I shall say more to the shame of this speech afterwards: yet let me say this much at present. If it bee but some few▪ or here and there one, yea or but the most that Christ commandeth to disciple, then we must endeavour to make but those few or most disciples (for our endeavour must not go beyond our command and commission) But this is most horrid Doctrine, and notoriously false, [that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all, but of some.] (For Paul oft professeth his longing and endeavour to the contrary:) therefore it is as false that the command is not for the discipling all.
Answ. What Mr. B. hath said to the shame of my speech plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 279, 280. (which is I think the place hee means) is to the shame of so impudent an affronting of plain Scripture proof refelled in my Praecursor sect. 22. which shame is not at all covered by hi… reply in his praefestinis morator sect. 22. in which he doth not at all answer my proof out of Scripture for my speech, but onelyonly seeks to acquit himself from that which I charge him with as not rightly setting down my words, which is his frequent fault. Two parts of my speech he excepts against, 1. that God will not call nor ever did, a whole nation so as that every individual should be within the visible Church. Against this he refers to his Addition pag. 339.340. and there he turns me over to Mr. Hudson, and refers me to the answering of him when I answer the 20th. Chapter of the first part of his plain Script. &c. But many of the texts, and consequently the rest are shewed to bee impertinently alledged, in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 9. (where pag. 129. I was mistaken in what I said, I know not what is in Mr. Bs. addition pag. 339, 340. thinking then it had been some addition which was not in his first edition, which now I finde otherwise) and therefore if I say no more of that, the Reader will not want an answer to the allegations in his addition pag. 339, 340. 2. He excepts against what he conceives I say [that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all, but of some] which he terms horrid doctrine and notoriously false. On the otherside if my meaning be rightly understood, to wit, of persons that have not the use of reason, such as in…ants, natural fools, &c. I aver the contrary doctrine to be horrid and notoriously false, for the reasons fore-given. If he charge me with it, that because I say God will not call a whole nation (which I mean of effectuall call alluding to 1 Cor. 1.26, 27, &c.) therefore I mean that we should endeavour to disciple none but such, his charge is but a calumny. No words of mine either in pulpit w…iting, or private speech, tended to such a sense. As for what he saith, Paul oft professeth his longing endeavour to the contrary, if he mean contrary to my assertion, it is most false. He no where professeth his longing and endeavour to disciple the whole of a nation, even the infants. The profession he makes Philip. 1.8. is the fullest and likeliest to be meant by Mr. B. that comes to my thoughts, which it were ridiculous to apply to infants, [they all] being the same to whom he wrote entituled, Saints in Christ v. 1. with whom he had fellowship in the Gospel v. 5. in whom God had begun a good work v. 6. who in his bonds and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel were partakers of his grace v. 7. whose love he mentions v. 9.
Thus much for the proof of which Mr. B. was confident. To his words. If this [my alleaging Gal. 4.1, &c. Matth. …8.19. as before] be not to feign God to say what we would have him; yea contrary to what he doth say, then I am quite mistaken. I answer, I grant it, and add that I do not call to minde that ever I found a man of so much fame, and confidence, so fouly mistaken as Mr. B. is in this point. I proceed as fast as I can after M.B. who hath made the way foul by his scribling.