Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 51

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 51

p. 311SECT. LI. The arguments from the altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call, the ceasing of the High Priest, &c. to prove Infants now no visible Church-members are made good against Mr. Bs. 5th. Ch. plain, &c. part. 1.

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

Answ. And I cannot chuse but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is dis…ingenuous and Sop…istical▪ in sore …a…ling Readers by such censures, which are the mere evaporations of his own ignoranc… and confidence, and I might add arrogance. But to the argument. I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal, or that it is cloudy, misty arguing, against any Scripture, But from it. The argument is ta…en from the notation of the word Church, put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines, yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof, &c. pag. 71, 8…, that the Greek word for Church is from calling out, and that the Church is a peo…le or a society of persons called out of the world. Whence it follows, that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church, they that have not an outward call, are not of the visible Church: But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church, therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church. The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church, which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church, 1. by authority, 2. of a whole people together. 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the onelyonly way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel, 2. that this call is of single pe…sons severed in their habitations, relations, &c. The former is proved by story. Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel, one by Abraham, and that was Gen. 17. (perhap… there was some other, but no other occurs to me) and that was according to Gods direction p. 312by authority, taking in all his house together, not by preaching as the Apostles did. The other of Moses Exod. 19 &c. which was done in like manner. The later is proved by institution and practise to be seen in these and many more Scriptures, Ephes. 4.11, 12, &c. Acts 2.41, 47. Act. 8.12, &c. But of this which is the onelyonly outward churchcal infants are not the subjects, therefore neither of visible churchmembership, which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches. This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by humane generation (which it must bee if it bee as the Jewish church-membership was) as Joh. 1.13. and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18. 1 Pet. 1.23. It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible, is from their different calling. They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called, they are not of the visible who have not the outward call. Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit, est vocatio: unde etiam & nomen suu… accipit & definitionem. Hudson vindic. p. 67. exte…nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church. Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24. cum 10.32. Ames Medul▪ Th. l. 1. c. 31. §. 6.7. But infants have not the outward call, they are not brought into the Church by the word. Therefore they are not visible Church-members.

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

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

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

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

Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal, if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular: as an excommunicate, Apostate, &c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church, if he have no standing therein distinct p. 313from that in the particular Church, which he hath lost. And this was the case of infants, they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church; and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members, (as it is,) and another erected in which they are not reckoned, infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members. And …his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this.

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

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

3. Saith Mr. B. You must distinguish between their Church conside…ed in it self, and considered comparatively as to othe…s. The Jews were a peculiar people and Church of God, no other had the like priviledges. Now if they had b…lieved, they should have kept all their priviledges absolutely considered: (except it be a losing them to change them for greater.) But comparatively co…sidered, they should not have kept some relative priviledges: For they should no longer have been a singular peculiar people, seeing others should have enjoyed as great priviledges as they; yet this would have been without any loss of theirs, much more without wholly unchurching them or their children. When a man hath but one son, he hath the priviledge of being his Fathers onelyonly Son: But when his father hath many more, he hath lost that priviledge; and yet is not therefore turned out of the Family; nay, the adding of more Brethren in our case, is an increase of the happiness of each p…rticular: for this is the very case of the Jews. The adding of the Gentiles would have made the Jews no more to be so peculiar as to be singular in their priviledges; and yet they should have enjoyed never t…e less. Therefore mark i…, the Scripture speaking of taking in the Gentiles, it exp…esseth it as by taking down the partition wall, and making of both one Church; but it speaks not of unchurching the Jews first, and their children, or bereaving them of their priviledges. And when in his Vision Peter was taught the Doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church, Acts 10. it was not by making the Jews unclean, but by clensing the Gentiles to be clean as the Jews. So that if the Jews would have believed, they should have lost only their comparative priviledges consisting in the singularity of their enjoyments, which is no loss to them, to have the Gentiles enjoy them as well as they; but their priviledges in themselves considered, would not have been diminished, but some lesser turned into greater: And therefore certainly God would never p. 314have turned their children all out of the visible Church.

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

4. Saith Mr. B. So when we call the Jews [a National Church] and when Mr. T. saith God to…k the whole Nation to be his Church, it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and restriction to that Nation onelyonly, as if God had not called any other whole Nation: and so it may be true, that the Jews onelyonly were a National Church (though yet it is doubtfull, as what is said of Melchizedek before sheweth:) and also in regard of their National and Church unity (which yet is the excellency and strength of all other Churches;) or else by a National Church may be meant, as if p. 315all were Church members that were of that Nation, and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation: And thus I perceive it is by many understood. But this is notoriously false.

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

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

Answ. A mutual Covenant, such as that at Mount Sinai, I deny not to have made the people of Israel the Church of God, and consequently the infants then born visible Church-members. But I d…ny that it was then by reason of the parents engaging for themselves and their children, sith it appears plainly by Exod. 19.7, 8. & 24.3. that the Elders of the people onelyonly engaged for the whole Nation. And the same I conceive of the Covenant Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. The Covenant Gen. 17. if it were mutual, it doth not appear that any other then Abraham himself engaged for his house. Nor do I deny such a mutual Covenant, if the Lord should enter into it, or declare his mind concerning it, would make a Nation, and consequently infan…s Church members. But according to the constitution of the Christian visible Church I deny God makes any such Covenant or declares his mind that by such Covenant he will gather his Church. Yet were it yeelded that the Covenant made them members of the Church, the Propositions are true nevertheless with my explications, That all were Church-members that were of that Nation, and no more is required to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation. And to what he alledgeth, I acknowledge that ordinary Proselytes at first admission were not members without their Covenant engaging them and theirs in their power to the observance of the Law of Moses, and the s…me reason I conceive of hired servants, and that thereby they became of that Nation, or as the Jewish Doctors say were regenerated, and lost their former kindred, and became Jews. But it was not enough to make them of that Church, though they covenanted or professed to take Je…ovah for their onelyonly God, except they took on them to observe Moses Law. Therefore Cornelius was no visible member of the Jewish Church, though he feared God with all his house, but was shunned by them, Acts 10.28. & 11.3. as an unclean, p. 316uncircumcised person of another Nation. Nor do I find any proof of that which Mr B. suppose…h, that all aged persons, as servants bought were before they were circumcised …aused by their Masters interest and authority to enter the Covenant fi…st. But this doth no whit overthrow the Positions, That all were C…urch-members that were of that Nation, and that no more was re…uired to the being a Church-member but to be of that Nation. Nor is there any more force in what Mr. B. adds. 2. And though they were taken into the Church in infancy yet if they afterward forsook or renounced the Covenant, they were to be cut off from the Church, yea to be put to death. 3. And in many cases their children were to be put to death with them. And therefore their Chu…ch was not so National as that any in the Nation should be a member of it who forsook the Covenant. Which I grant: For t…en they ceased to be of that Nation, that is in that policy or Commonwealth de jure at least, if not de facto. What he adds, Indeed God chose the seed of Abraham …n a special manner? but not to be Church members immediately, but first to enter into his Covenant, and take him for their God, and so to be Church mem…ers, is not true. For immediately upon their birth, the seed of Abraham were Church-members visible, though neither they nor their parents, or any other entred into Covenant for them: and if this speech of Mr. B. were true, neither had Jews infants been visible Church members, and so not to be circumcised (contrary to the command) nor according to Mr. Bs. and other Paedobaptists principles our infants visible Church-members, nor to be baptized without such entring in to Covenant going before, which will nullifie the infant Baptism of many, and overthrow the argument from the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. produced as sufficient for infant Baptism by most Paedobaptists without any other entring the Covenant.

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

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

6. Saith Mr. B. And so you must distinguish betwe…n the repealing of the Law or grant upon which the very species or nature of the Church is grounded; and the execution of the threatning of Law upon particular persons or Churches offending. The repeal of the Law or ordinance doth take away all right to the mercy granted by p. 317that Law or ordinance even the remote conditional right, and that from all men, one as well as another to whom that Law gave that right. But the punative execution of the threatening doth onelyonly take away the absolute right to the mercy and the right in it, and that from none but the particular offenders. This punitive execution of the Law (or the curse of the Covenant, as it is called Deut. 29.20, 21.) is so far from being a repeal of the Law, that it certainly proveth it is not repealed: For a repealed Law is of no force, and so cannot be executed. And upon these two last distinctions, I add this for application of them: The individual Jewish Church is (for the most part) broke off, and so they that are so broke off are now no Church, and consequently have lost th…ir priviledges: But the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church (and many of its accidents) was grounded, is not changed or repealed. So the Church of Smyrna, Thyatira, Laodicea, and the rest of Asia (for the most part) are now unchurched: But this is but by a punitive execution of the Law for their sin, and no change in the Law, or in the nature of the Church; And so it is with the Jews also in their unchurching. Though they are cast off, yet the Law and Nature of Churches is still the same; and onelyonly the Laws about ceremonial worship▪ and some other accidents of the Church are repealed. So that the casting off of them and their children, is no proof that the whole species of infants is cast out of the Church visible.

Answ. The nature, species, essential form of the Church is that which is exprest in the definition of it, in which Mr. B. himself pag. 82. saith, certainly all Divines are agreed, that it is a society of persons separated from the world, to God, or called out of the world, &c. now a law on which this might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream: Laws repealeable determine not of essences, but things to be existent, to wit, particular actions to bee done or omitted. Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant. For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual, and so may bee of the existence of a Church, yet if God do separate or call by authority, preaching, power, or any other way, without a Covenant, they will have the essence of a Church. The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species, but an individual, and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature, species or essential form of the Church, unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong. For if so, without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church. What the priviledges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation, as part of that people, such inheritance, and other benefits in part which their parents had, which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off, I do not well understand: Nor do I know any priviledge, which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible, which they should have had if they had been taken in. For the priviledges of p. 318the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members, were, as I conceive, to cease upon the comming of Christ, and the erection of the Christian Church, not by any punitive execution of a Law, but a wise dispensation of God, as he conceived fittest for his own glory, and the enlarging of the Kingdome of his Son. The species, as Mr. B. speaks, that is, the whole order, rank, series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church, but onelyonly the infants of the Jewish Nation. Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence, but by altering the Church-state from Jewish into Ch…istian as God thought best.

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

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

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

Answ. 1. By [constitution] I neither mean the essential nature, nor some ceremonial accident, but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale. I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley, January 1. 1649. p. 319that I used the term of [taking down,] but rather the term [altered,] which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shews to have been the term I used. And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species, nor by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church; but by a free act of his Soveraignty as Rector or Lord, who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth: As when a Lord or Governour one while takes in…o his house men, and their wives, and children, another while onelyonly single men, he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house, nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house, but because it likes him better to have his house onelyonly of strong able men, alters the state of his house in respect of the members; so it is in this case. 2. By [their Churchmembership] I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers, unchurched Jews, nor the whole species of infants; but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members, whether believing or unbelieving. 3. If I conclude (as I did) that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish, I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed. Let's view his answer to my proof.

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

Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental, the essential parts of that Covenant or Law, giving them the essence of a Church, [I will be to thee a God, and thou shalt be to me a people, Deut. 29.11, 12. Which suppose either God could not make p. 320a Covenant without that promise, or that a Church could not be without that promise, or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan, which was as essential to that Covenant as the other, they being both but integral parts, of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole. And for the essence of a Church, which consists in the association, or union of the members, it is not given by a Coven…nt of God, promising what he will be to them, and they to him for the future, (for that assures them onelyonly of continuance, doth not give their present essence,) but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others, and unites or incorporates them together, which I call, as usually Divines do, the Church call; agreeably to the Scripture, Rom 9.24, 25, 26. 1 Cor. 1.2, 24. &c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit, and is still the same; or outward, and was, tho…gh by various acts of his providence, yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses, not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith, as in the Christian Church, when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church: But the authority and power of Rulers, who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words, draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth, which was called the congregation or Church of Israel, in which the infants were included, and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution. This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning, by my instances which he sets down, that the way, means, or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish: For the Christian Church outward call was onelyonly according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian, and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ, and not by any coercive power of Rulers, whereas the Jewish was otherwise. Mr. B. proceeds.

In the mean time briefly thus I answer. 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased, and so are the ceremonies built thereon. 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased; God yet offers the Jews to be their God, and them to be his people. If they heartily consent it may be done, onelyonly the World is taken into this Covenant with them, and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded, that exclude not themselves. 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease, when yet the Church ceased not. 4. And for the Ministerial call, 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed; yet the effect ceased not: Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone. 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call, then what sort is that? And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches, this is that he drives at: [God then called by Magistrates, but now by Ministers: And secondly, then he called all the Nation in one day, but now he calls he…e one and there one.]

p. 321Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive, that Mr. B. might have understood, or rather did understand me well enough, that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call, which he could learn by my speeches, that drive at it. But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions, or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding, what he could not well answer, he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain. But for what he sai…h, that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased, because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people, he therein shews two mistakes: 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant, as if God could not make a Covenant without it, which is false, the Covenant Gen. 9.9, 10. with Phinehas, Numb. 25.12, 13. with the Rechabites, Jer. …5.19. being without it. 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers, which implies either the Covenant to be all on… with an offer, or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer, whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant, and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent, as Mr. B. means. But Mr. B. proceeds thus

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

Answ. I neither attempted nor needed to prove the essence, nature, or essential constitution of the Jewish Church to be altered, and therefore if the different call I assign prove it not, yet what I was to prove, that the Church constitution in respect of the integral parts, and consequently of infants being included, is alt…red, might be, and indeed is firmly concluded from thence. For as Alsted. suppl. Chamier. de naturae Eccl. ch. 2. §. 3. The matter of the Church are men called, Mat. 20.16. p. 322The form is the call it self, and that is either simple, that is, either extern…l onelyonly, or internal onelyonly; or conjunct, that is, external and internal together. §. 7. The inward call is that in which God calls inwardly by his spirit: the outward, in which he calls outwardly by the ministery of the Church. And this is the call of the Church, which as it is the action of God calling, is in God himself; but as it is received of the Church, is it's form: Or as Ames med. Th. l. 1. c. 31. §. 6, 7. That first thing which in act constitutes the Church, is calling; whence also it receives it's name and definition. For the Church is a company of men called, 1 Cor. 1.24. with 10.32. And Cameron in his praeiect. of the Church, in his definition of the Church, makes it to be a society of men called by the ministery of the word, and saith, called and believers are the same in Scripture. Mr. B. confes. of Faith, pag. 284. The Church is, Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium. If then infants be not called by the word, which is the onelyonly way of calling into the Christian visible Church, nor believers, then they are no part of the visible Church Christian, and consequently the Church constitution is altered, and the Law of visible church membership of infants (if there were such a Law) is repealed. And this argument is powerfull enough (if there were no more) to venture upon to unchurch (though I like not the expression) all the infants of the world, that is, to prove none of them to be members of the visible Church Christian. That which Mr. B. objects, doth not invalidate the consequence. For the consequence is not grounded on this onelyonly, that the Magistrate called then, and the Minister now; then all together, now here one and there another: but on this, the Magistrate did it then by his authority, though without perswading one after another; but in the Christian Church the Minister doth it by preaching the word, teaching and perswading one after another, as the word takes, and not by any commanding power, or outward force, or legislative, or coercive vertue. And this is sufficient to alter the constitution of the Church in this respect; because if none be called but those that receive the word, and none be members of the Church but the called, and infants be uncapable thereof, they are not members of the visible Church Christian. And therefore Mr. Bs. frivolous questions all run upon the mistake which out of negligence he runs into, as his own words shew, as if I had argued onelyonly from the different persons, and their different office, and not also from the different way, manner, or sort of call, whereas he acknowledgeth that my speeches do drive at this, that my meaning was of the species or sort of ministerial call; and so I might answer them all negatively, and gra…t what he would have me, and yet my proof stands good. And for what he saith, that the …fficient cause enters not the essence, I find to the contrary in Keckerm. syst. log. l. 1. par. 2. c. 2. That in the definition of accidents, the notion of distinction, or the difference is taken from the subject, efficient, end, and object. Yet this, if true, were nothing against me, who do not make the Messenger or Minister of our call of the essence of the Church, no nor of the existence, though the Apostles wo…ds▪ Rom. 10.14. speak near to it: But this is that which I hold, no person is ordinarily a member of the visible Church Christian, but who is called by the p. 323outward preaching of the word, who ever be the Messenger or Minister of the call; and sith infants are not so called, they are not members of the visible Church Christian.

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

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

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

Answ. Mr. B. saith he answers, but indeed puts questions to me to answer, and those impertinent. For though I could not tell him which was the first call, nor when the church-membership of Abrahams family p. 324begah, yet it might be true and proved, that the call of the Jewish Church was by the magistrate. But yet for clearing of the truth, I shall make some answer. 1. That I find God calling Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, Gen. 12.1. Acts 7.3. Isa. 41.2. and sundry times I find Abraham sacrificing to God, and God covenanting with him: Nor would I deny Abraham, Sarah, and those of his family who worshipped the true God, to have been visible church members before circumcision. 2. But yet I finde not the whole family of Abraham men women and children made a visible Church, by any act or ri…e which might be termed a Chur…h-call, whereby they were separated from all o…her people and united in a little nation unto God till the appointment of circumcision by God, and the performing of it by Abrahams authority. Now if Mr. B. could not tell which and when the Jewish Church call was, or the Jews childrens church-membership began, I think he is very unreasonable to require of me to shew a repeal of a thing which hee findes not when it began. But there is more of this wilde posing sc…ibling to be answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was it then that Abraham did more then now may be done? If you p. 325say, he compelled them to be circumcised by violence without their consent, I deny it as a forgery; And if he had done so by those at age, it had been no making them Church-members; for their consent is absolutely necessary therto. If you say, Abraham by his interest and authority perswasion did win all at age in his family to consent; dare you say, that every Master of a family and Magistrate ought not to do so now? So that I cannot finde any more that Abraham did in this call then may now be done.

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

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

Answ. Mr. B. herein doth most shamefully wrest my words and p. 326meaning: For whereas to shew the different call of the Jewish and Christian Church, I alledged onelyonly matter of fact, that the one was by the Magistrates authority, the other by Ministers preaching the Gospel, which could not take in infants; Mr. B. wrests my speech as if I had said, Magistrates might not do what Moses then did, and goes about to insinuate, as if the Magistracy were less beholding to me then were meet; and endeavours to encrease the suspicion of my lessening his power by my Doctrine in the Pulpit at Bewdley. But of my judgement in this thing, I ha…e given account in the same Pulpit on occasion of the Swearing of the Magistrate there on Rom. 13.4. in these Positions. 1. That all power is committed to Christ to manage as Mediator, Mat. 28.18. Joh. 5.22, 27. 1 Cor. 15.24. And consequently, what they do for or against the Church, it is from Christ enabling or permitting even as Mediator. 2. That Magistrates as well as others are subject to, and are to yeeld obedience to Christs commands as he is Mediator, Mat. 17.5. Act. 3.22. 3. That they have power & authority in many things which concern the Church of God, and are bound to use their power for Christ, and his Church, so far as their power extends, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. And in this sence it is that Christ exerciseth some of his Government by Magistracy under him, as also by Parents and Husbands, Ephes. 6.4. But I conceive it a business of much difficulty, to set the right bounds of their power Many things few or none but Papists restrain them in, as the calling of Assemblies, judging of Ecclesiastical persons for civil crimes, ordering the maintenance, and estates of such persons, with many more such things as are to be done circa Ecclesiam, not in Ecclesia: On the other side, few or none but Erastians allow them power in the Church, so as to act as civil Magistrates in that which is by special commission appointed to proper Officers, viz. the preaching of the Gospel, administring the peculiar Rites of the Christian Church, ordination of Elders, government by Ecclesiastick censures, and such like things. The chiefest difficulty hath been, how far they are to use their power for making men profess Christianity, accept of Teachers, punishing of Hereticks and excommunicate persons, and such like acts, in which f…r the most part Magistrates by instigation of Popish Priests, Prelates, and others, have much miscarried, and been unhappy instruments of much oppression. Yet for my part I do not deny altogether their power about such things as these, especially if they go no further then what Mr. B. here speaks of, the commanding them to obey Gods commands, propounding the Covenant of God to them, restraining pernicious▪ Teachers, and go upon very sure grounds, that they urge nothing but what is certainly Gods command, or agreeable to it, nor punish or restrain men for that which is questionable whether it be an errour, or pernicious. But this I hold, should a Magistrate as Moses did, by his authority, upon fears or hopes, or other compliance, draw all the people of the Land into a Covenant, to engage themselves and posterity to be Christians, yet this would not make the whole Nation to be a Christian Church, the infants visible church-members, capable of Baptism, sith Christ hath not appointed this way, but another, to wit, by preaching p. 327the Gospel to call his Church, and the preachers of it to baptize believers so called. 4. I say, that a civil Magistrate is not an Officer of Christ as Mediator, sith he hath no new Commission from him as the Apostles, John 20.21. and others, Ephes 4.11. And I conceive to hold the affirmative is of dangerous consequence: it will follow, 1. That a civil Magistrate is bound to produce a further commission from Christ as mediator, besides the appointmen of God as creatour, which I neither think Mr. B. hath shewed, nor can shew. 2. That he who shews commission from Christ as mediator to rule, hath the authority of a civil Magistrate, which puts both Swords into Elders hands. 3. That if a civil Magistrate be an Officer of Christ as mediator, he is in the Church, in which alone Christ as mediator sets Officers; and then he must be a Christian or no Magistrate, yea, a church member, and then he hath rule in the Church, and power to do Ecclesiastical acts. 4. Then dominion is founded in grace, which it seems Mr. B. holds. Praefestin. Mor. sect. 19. as most certain that it is founded in the grace of redemption and universal; and brings for it plain Scrip. proof, &c. pag. 229. Rom. 14.9. which v. 8. shews plainly to be meant onelyonly of those that live and die to him, and are his own peculiar people; and the word foreign notes not such a Lordship as is over enemies, as Devils, and children of perdition by power and force; but such a Lordship as is with property over them as his possession, to whom he hath right as his own, 1 Cor. 6.…0. such as a wife, an obedient child, or servant. The other Texts prove …ut my first Position. The Reader I presume will pardon this excursion, being necessitated by Mr. Bs. frequent and continued mal…gnant suggestions, tending to make me accounted an adversary to Magistracy. I now return to the point in hand. And in answer to Mr. Bs. demand, I say, the peculiar call of the Church of the Jews by Moses the Magistrate was, in his bringing them out of Aegypt, into the Covenant at mount Sinai, setling them under Laws, Priesthod, Government, whereby they were fashioned or established as a national Church. But in the Christian Church, the Apostles and other holy Teachers did gather, and fashion, and establish the Church Christan by preaching of the word, without such a way of authority and power as Moses exercised. It is true he did as we read, Deut. 30.19. but not so as the Apostles, who when the Gospel was refused exercised no power over the refusers; for Moses would suffer none to live in the Commonwealth of Israel who did not own the God of Israel, and if they worshipped an Idol he put them to death.

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

Answ. My argument, the Church call is altered from the way of making the Jewish Church by Abra…ams and Moses authority, into the perswasive way of begetting faith by Ministers preaching the Gospel, therefore the Church constitution is altered, doth not help Seekers, except p. 328it be acknowledged, there is no Church now by Ministers preaching the Gospel, but by meer authority of Magistrates, which was heretofore the objection of Papists against the English churches, b…t refelled by Protestants, Jewel, &c. For I do not appropriate the Church call to the Apostles, or men who could speak that which was meerly, wholly, undoubtedly, insite, implantedly the word of God, as Borelius spake; but to the preaching of the Gospel by any Minister of Christ, or other instrument, whereby faith is begotten, and whereby a…one the Christian visible Church and all its members were called, in a different way from the Jewish Church call; which if Mr. B. do not see to have been the Christian peculiar church making call, after his wr…ting in his Saints everl. rest, par. 2. ch. 6. sect. 1. it seems he will not see i…, and then wee may apply to him the Proverb, Who so blinde as hee that will not see?

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

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

p. 329Again saith Mr. B. But Abraham took all his family to be a Church in one day, you will say. I answer. First, It is not proved when they began to be a Church. Repl. Nor needs it. 2ly. And would not Mr. T. now have a whole family made a Church in a day? Is that his charity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answ. Yes, they may, so many as upon knowledge of Christ do freely consent to receive him in all nations: But infants, natural fools, p. 330mad-men in their fits, are neither fit to consent, nor to be members in the Christian visible Church, no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith. Mr. B. adds.

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

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

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

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

p. 331Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once, and five thousand afterwards? and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe? Acts 2.41. & 4.4. & 21.20. besides all Gentiles? Was it but here one and there one, when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord, both men and women, Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria, Acts 8.

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

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

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

Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shewed you before, that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations: It is a base exposition that shall p. 332say he means onelyonly, Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations, and no more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answ. The Church call of the Jewish nation or family of …braham, was by his authority, in a way common to men of age and infants: Abraham and his house were by circumcision and declaring Gods Covenant formed into a visible Church, and accordingly all that were born p. 333of Abraham, and all that were taken into his house while they continued in that Family or Nation, were of that Church. And this way of Church call, by bringing into the bond of the Covenant the whole Nation, infants, servants, men and women together, was by the authority of Moses renewed at mount Horeb, and in the land of Moab, Deut. 29.1. though circumcision were deferred for a time. And this call was of the infants, though not by themselves apart, yet conjunctly with the whole Nation, the chief representing the rest, Exod. 19.7. Deut. 29.10. and among them the infants, who might as well understand a call as a Covenant, into which Mr. B. contends they did enter.

Mr. B. adds. The Proselytes, who were made Church-members at age, were first converted to God, and professed the true Religion, and so brought in their children with them: They were converted not all in a day, but by times; not onelyonly by Moses, or succeeding Magistrates, but chiefly by Priests or Levites, or zealous people, or by what way or means God was pleas…d to use for that end. I did int…eat Mr. T. to shew me any material difference between the call of these Prosely…es into the Church in all ages till Christ, and the call of us Gentiles into the Church: And truly he gave me an answer of meer words for a put off, (wherein he hath a notable faculty,) which I can find no weight nor sence in, nor am I able to tell what he would say to it; nor can I conceive what possibly can be said of any moment. And as Camero well noteth, foreign, is now used in the Church as it were in the place of foreign: Discipling new to us, is as Proselyting was to them. So that you see now what this Church call is which he layeth so great a weight on, and how much in the main it differeth from ours.

Answ. When that time was that Mr. B. made this request to me, and what imperfect answer it was which I gave him, I do not well remember: I guess it was when I had conference with him alone, Jan. 25. 1649. in his chamber, when he drew me to a conference with him, pretendi…g friendliness; but (as the event shewed, having Jan. 15. before, when I suspe…ed no such dealing, written his abusive Epistle before his Saints everlasting rest, in which he falsly accused me and proclaimed his driving me to absurdities in the Dispute, Jan. 1.) drew from me what he could …or his advantage, and then printed it in this Book, without my revising my answers, or his acquainting me with his printing them, or rightly according as they were printing them, as may be perceived by this Review; and mocking me with this fraudulent trick, when I expected according to his promise to see his arguments written from some of his own or my auditors to whom he would communicate them. But leaving him to the Lord, I shall now give a plain answer to his demand. Proselytes were of two sorts, 1. Of the gate, as Cornelius, ow…ing the God of Israel, but not joyning to the Church and policy of Israel. These were not of the Jewish Church visible, though they were of the Church invisible of true believers, and of the Church visible universal of professors of the true God: For they were accounted unclean, and shunned by the Jews, Acts 10.28. & 11.2, 3. Their p. 334calling I conceive was as ours is, by the word of God made known to them; nor do I find that infants were any part of the Church of them, whether domestick as in Cornelius house, Acts 10.2. or congregational, of which I find not an instance, nor of any rites or discipline they had. 2. Of righteousness, who were made such partly by perswasion as Mat. 23.15. and so far their call agrees with our call, and the other sort of Proselytes, partly by entring them into the Jewish Church, by Baptism, Circumcision, and an Offering, and with them wives and children; and this was done by authority of Elders imposing on them the precepts of Moses Law, and acting according to rules of their own. In which how much their Church call differs from ours is shewed in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 24. in answer to Dr. Hammond. Now though they were joyned to the Jewish Church one after-another, and the infants of the Jews as they were born; yet the Jewish-Church, whether at the first erection, or after estab…ishing, were constituted of the whole Family and Nation together by the authority of Abraham and Moses differently from the call of the Christian Church visible in so material a point as excludes infants from church-membership, foreign, which thing I was to demonstrate.

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

Answ. My argument is this, If that which had the same reason with infants church-membership be altered, then infants church membership is altered: But that which had the same reason with infants visible church-membership is altered, Ergo. The consequence is made good by the rule of Logick, Where there is the same reason of things, there is to be the same judgement. De paribus idem est judicium. The minor is proved thus. The High Priest, Sanhedrim, repair to their Feasts, had the same reason with infants visible church membership: But they are altered, Ergo. The major is proved thus. Infants church membership was no where but in the Jewish Church, we read of it no where else, nor upon any other reason but their being part of the Nation, which God had made his Church; they were visible church members upon no profession of their own, nor from any general determination of God, Law or Ordinance that the children should be reckoned of his Church with the parents in any countrey whatsoever, there being no such Law; but meerly from hence, because he would have the Nation of Israel to be his fixed people out of whom the Messiah should come, and so a National Church till then. And for the same reason he would have one High Priest, Temple, repair thither at solemn Feasts, a Sanhedrim, their genealogies kept, their possessions by lot, &c. But all these are altered now, the Church is not National, no one High Priest, Temple, Sanhedrim, &c. therefore neither infants visible Churchmembership, p. 335which had the same reason and no other. What saith Mr. B.

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

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

I would intreat Mr. T. or any Christian who hath the least good will to truth lest in him, considerately to answer me to these. 1. Was not the Jewish people a Church before they had either a Temple, or Sanhedrim, or High Priest, or any of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses? Ans. I think not: there was no time they were a Church, but they had a Priest, an Altar, Sacrifices, distinction of clean and unclean beasts, &c. Were they not a Church in Aegypt, and in the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Ans. They were. 2. Did the adding of these Laws and ceremonies take down any former part of the Church? Ans. No. Or did every new ceremony that was added make a new Church, or constitution of the Church? Ans. No. 3. If the adding of all these ceremonies did not make a new Church, or overthrow the old, why should the taking of them away overthrow it? Ans. Who saith it doth? 4. If the Jews Church constitution before Moses time was such as took in infants, why not after Moses time? Ans. Who denies it? Or if infants were Church-members long before either Temple, or Sanedrim, or High Priest, &c. Why may they not be so when these are down? why must they needs fall with them when they did not rise with them? Ans. Because if they did not rise with them at the same time, yet they were erected upon the same foundation, the Jewish National Church, as the walls fall with the roof, though they rise not together, because they rest on the same foundation. 5. And if the very specifical nature of their Church be taken down, then men are cast out, and women too, as well as children. Ans. I say not the specifical nature of their Church was taken down, but the particular Church constitution Jewish altered; and I grant it, that men and women under the consideration as they were in the Jewish Church, are left out (I will not say cast out, for they were never in) of the Christian visible Church as well as children. If it be said that Christ hath appointed men and women to be church members anew, I answer, What man can imagine that Christ first repealed the Ordinance that men and women should be members p. 336of the Church, and then set it up anew? Ans. And what man can imagine otherwise who reads the New Testament, but that (if there were such an Ordinance that men and women being Jews by birth should be members of the Jewish Church) Christ repealed it, when neither John Baptist, nor Christ, nor his Apostles admitted any Jew because a Jew into the Christian Church by Baptism, without his personal faith and repentance?

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

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