Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 57

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 57

p. 393SECT. LVII. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. or Gen. 3.15.

I Come now, saith Mr. B. to the 8th. Qu. that is to speak to the point which you propounded. You urge me to cite to you the particular texts that contain this Law, Ordinance, Precept, or Covenant. To which I answer thus. 1. There are two sorts of Laws; one which fir… make a duty; the other which suppose it so made, and do onelyonly call for obedience▪ and excite thereto, or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto. If I could she… you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty, or granting the priviledg of Churchmembership, it were no… the least disparagement to my cause, as long as I can shew you those following laws which presuppose this. You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of: Where then was Gods will manif…sted about such things as this, but in tradition and nature? If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit, then what need he make a new law about it? or why should God pr…ise it as a new thing? I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days, I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause (though yet I think there would enough remain.) 2. There are (yet higher) two sorts of laws: the one for the constitution of the Commonwealth it self, the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted. The former are called by some, Fundamental Laws as laying the frame and form of the Commonwealth, and the quality of the materials, &c. I think indeed, that as constitutive of the form of the Commonwealth, these are scarce preperly called Laws; though as they look forward, obliging to duty, and prohibiting alteration, they may. But if they be not laws, they are somewhat higher, and lay the ground of all laws and obedience, and so are laws eminenter & vi…ualiter, though not actually and formally: And in our case, as this constitution did subject us to God, making it our duty ever after to obey him; so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection. And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence, and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant▪ Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing, it were no diminution of the authority of it, seeing among men Fundamentals are seldome written, and when they are, it is onelyonly as laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution. As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively infants should be Churchmembers, it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing. Yet somewhat we shall attempt. 3. We have full proof of infants Churchmembership by laws and Covenants concerning it, ever since the time that there was a written word of God: and that is sufficient, if p. 394we could fetch it no higher. Having premised this, I come nearer to the Question.

Answ. Had Mr. B. meant fairly, and not either to prepossess the Reader with prejudice against me, or weary him afore he should come to the point, he had begun with this question: In the entrance to which he tediously sets down some postulata, which do shew, that we are not to expect any plain Scripture proof of a Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, which he so cracks of as to intitle his Book as if he would bring such. But I shall let pass his postulata, and attend to his proofs.

The first institution, saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership de jure upon supposition of their existence, was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the World, when he became mans governour, and determined of his subjects, and members of the Commonwealth: Which Republick being sacred, and devoted to Gods worship and service, was truly a Church of which God was head. This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation, That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man, almost all Divines agree: But because it is rather implied then expressed in Moses brief History, some few cavillers do therefore contradict us. But 1. the threatning of death for sin, seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not. 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it, which to you I need not recite. But whether this promise of life were natural (as the threatning of death was,) or onelyonly positive and more arbitrary, Divines are not agreed among themselves, Those that say it was free and positive, give this reason, That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature, nor any creature merit of God. Those that think it natural as the threatning was, say, It's true that God could not be properly be obliged, because he is under no law, no more is he obliged to punish▪ but onelyonly man obliged to suffer if he inflict it: And it's true that man cannot strictly merit of God. But yet, say they, as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity, so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject, and his works do oblige him (improperly) in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word. So that their reasons are these following. 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good, as to do evil to the evil, that is, to reward as to punishment, as his name proclaimed to Moses, Exod. 34. shews. 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity, and principling him with inclinations thereto, and giving him desires, love, and other affections for that blessed end, even the everlasting fruition of God, therefore they say, God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity; if he sinned not. For else all these inclinations and affections should have been in vain: But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly. Also Gods works would not be harmonical: So that as Gods p. 395promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability, so, say they, the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him: So that as he could not let sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration, no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him. So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessary be punished for evil, or rewarded for good, that is, he might have made him not a man; yet having so made him, it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty. 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from it's natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity. And if the immortality may be so proved from it…s nature, then also it's felicity in case of righteousness. I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines, but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express. 1. It is most certain, whether the reward or promise be natural or positive, that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to, or in part and the way to more. And i…'s most certain, that man was made holy, devoted to God, and fit for his service, and that in this estate according to the law of his creation, he was to increase and multiply: It's most certain therefore, that accor- to the first law of nature, infants should have been Churchmembers. 2. But if their opinion hold, that make the reward grounded on the law of nature, and not on a meer positive law, (and you see the reasons are not contemptible,) then the argument would be yet more advantagious. 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity, it's most certain, that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood. The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership, as expressing its original de jure, is Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. [So God created man in his own image —And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth.] Here you see by the law of n… ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency, and so Churchmembers. And note, that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind, is, that they propagate children in their owne estate, to bee as the parents were, even in Gods image.

Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership, it proves not their visible Churchmembership, of which onelyonly is the question. 2. If it prove a law or ordinance, yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question, which is not a law or ordinance de jure, but de eventu, that so it shall be, or they shall be so accounted. For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onelyonly can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers, they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission, according to Mr. Bs. own dictates, and therefore not de jure onelyonly▪ such. 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance, yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B ▪ asserts. 4. If it did, yet it onelyonly proves it of the Church by nature, p. 396which hath a great difference from the Church by grace, this being onelyonly by election and calling, not by birth. 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed, then it is in force, and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin. For man is born according to the law of procreation, Gen. 1.28. and if this were the law of nature, that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind, is, that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were, even in Gods image; then still the law of nature continues, and so there is no original sin; or it is repealed, and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts. 6. The words [God created, blessed,] do note onelyonly a transeunt fact; and therefore, what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man, this passage onelyonly tells what God did, but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives, and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose. Let's view the next and main Text.

The next institution, saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership, was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man, or in the first promise of redemption to sinners, in Gen. 3.15. [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.] I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers: And to this end, let us first consider what the words expresly contain, and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them. It being a known rule, that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars, nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals, where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them. I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise. 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind, and brought them into this sin and misery, God would not leave them remediless, nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he …ght have done: But in grace … undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him, in which they that con…uered should bruise his head. 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ, the principal seed, is promised to be our General, whose perfect nature should contain, and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan, and who should make a perfect co…quest over him. 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the wom…ns seed, and so as conceived of her, and born by her, and so as an infant first, before he comes to ripeness of age. So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army, and Head of the Church. This is most evident: By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth, and the infant state, and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church, which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation. For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church, and growing up to maturity, to do the works of a Head. Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church, he would not have made the p. 397Head first an infant. Where note, 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church; and in things which he was capable o…, he did that first in his own body, which he would after do in theirs. 2. That the Head is a Member, even the principal Member, one of the two parts which constitute the whole. As the pars imp…rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth. So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called, then infants are not excluded from membership, but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature. If an infant may be Soveraign, no doubt he may be a Subject. If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church, then no doubt but infants may be Disciples. If you still harp on the old str…ng, and say, They are no Disciples that learn not; you may as well say, He is no Prophet that teacheth not. And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church, I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion, as soon as I know you own it. The promise then of an infant Head, doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members, because the head is the principal member.

Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed, that not onelyonly in the Church Jewish, but in the Christian properly so called, the infants of believers, by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed, and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God, should be, and be taken to be visible members. But that he takes upon him to prove, is, that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers, that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church, that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church, that it is his mind that he will have infant members; all which we might grant, and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved. For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church, and yet not of the visible Church; and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church, and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them; yea, there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them, and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity: For the conse…uence holds not, Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy, therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers, or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church. It must rest upon some such positions as these▪ In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church, in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers; the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church, or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers. Which are manifestly false, 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture, and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy. 2. Because if these positions were true, 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember, because then Christ was head of the Church▪ and as Mr▪ B. saith, The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed, and so as conceived of her: 2. Then an old man sho…ld not be a p. 398member of the visible Church, because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man; which are both absurd. And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme, though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church, nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy, understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation, nor that he in some respect, to wit, of rule and protection, the Head of the visible Church, even of that part which is not elect: Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception, which is by his spirit, he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect; nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible, but onelyonly in respect of that part which is invisible, to wit, the true believers▪ or elect p…rsons, who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head, as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth. Dr. Rainold, thes. 4. §. 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt. Dr. Field, of the Church, book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit. c. 9. makes them members not living, nor true according to the essence of members, but dead, and as ill humours in the body, and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them. 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. [that the Lord Jesus is promised, Gen 3.15. to do this work of bruising the Serpents head, or conquering the Devil as the womans seed, and so as conceived of her, and born by her, and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age;] according to which it may be true. For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first, yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed, according to humane nature onelyonly, but also according to his Divine, Heb 9.14. nor what he did was done in infancy, but at ripe age: For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death, Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy, but at ripe age. 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that [by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state:] For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ, who was born and an infant; yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby, seems not true▪ for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants o… persons born, and so the birth of a bastard should be holy, and his infancy holy, which I need not shew how absurd it is. 4. Nor do I conceive any truth, but gross falshood in that speech, [Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church, he would not have made the head first an infant:] For this doth suppose, that either this was the onelyonly end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant, and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world, or the fulfilling of his promise, that a child should be born, a son should be given to us; and would infer, that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers, must deny Christ to have been an infant. 5. Nor do I know that to be true, [that in things which Christ was capable of, he did that first in his own body, which he would after p. 399do in the bodies of his Church:] For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church, as to marry, beget children, &c. which he did not in his own body first, though he was capable of them. 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly, and in actu exercito. Let Mr. B. when he will assault it, there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood, none in this opinion. And for his inference, if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples, I grant both, and yet deny that Christ was visibly, audibly, in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church, or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly, till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith; nor am I ashamed to aver, that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not, that they are no Disciples that learn not. But Mr. B. proceeds.

4. Saith he, As the war is here proclaimed, and the General or chief Commander constituted, so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman, or humane race, against the whole seed of the serpent that then was, or the Diabolical nature. This is plain both in the text, and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent, it is the whole serpentine nature, that hath an enmity to the humane nature, and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature; they being venemous to us, and wee abhorring them as venemous, and as such as our lives are in danger of: so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature▪ Vide Muscul. Calvin. Luther. in locum. All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil, as of a serpent, they apprehend him to be their enemy, they abhor the very name and remembrance of him: If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them, they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition. If they know any temptation to be from him, so far they dislike it and abhor it, though for the thing presented they may cherish it. This is not special saving grace, but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace, and to our more effectual resisting of temptations, and entertaining the help t…at is offered us against them, when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature: we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary. And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity & amity with him, as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome, that proveth not that it was not naturally there, but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural. 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankinde against the diabolical nature, so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity, malignity, and works. Vide Pareum in locum. God will put an enmity by his Laws (both natural and positive) making it the duty of mankinde to take Satan for their enemy; to resist, and use him as an enemy, and fight against him and abhor his works, and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him, to take his colours, and to be of his Army: And this being spoken of the common world p. 400of mankinde, and not onelyonly of the elect (for it is not they onelyonly that are obliged to this hostility and warfare) belongeth to each one according to their capacities: and therefore infants being at the parents dis…ose, it is they that are to list them in this army against the enemy of mankinde, of which more anon. 6. A third and hig…er enmity is yet here comprehended, and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works, which may bee called [natural] as it is the bent or bias of our new nature. This God giveth onelyonly to his chosen, and not to all. And it containeth not onelyonly their consent to list themselves in his army against satan, but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness, and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his wor…s universally, to the death, with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers. H…re take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity. As God is one in three, and in his entity hath unity, verity, and goodness, and in his blessed nature hath posse, scire, velle, power, wisdome, and love, so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures, as absolute proprietary, as soveraign ruler, and as most gracious benefactour: As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical: As soveraign Ruler, he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty, that we should be listed in his army, profess open hostility against satan, and fight against him to the death. As Benefactor, he giveth special grace to do this, to his chosen. As he is Lord of all, so the first is done on the natures of all: As he is Rector of all, but not by the same Laws (as to positives) so he obligeth all to this hostility, but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel. As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list, and makes a difference. If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to bee put in all, and therefore the same persons in which it is put. I answer 1. there's no proof of either. A general command or promise to a community, may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community, though that difference be not expressed: For the nature of the subject may prove it. And 2. experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant, proves the difference before mentioned. And it's well known, 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters. 2. And that the mystery of grace was to bee opened by degrees, and so but darkly at the first, that it is no wonder if we find the whole sum of the Gospel here coucht-up in so narrow a room, and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes. 7. That wee may certainly know that this promise speaks not onelyonly of the enmity that Christ himself should have to satan, and doth not engage a General without an army, God doth here expresly mention the woman her self, saying [I will put enmity between thee and the woman ▪] so that as shee stood in a threefold respect; she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity. 1. As she is the root of humane nature, from whence all mankinde must spring, she is possest with the natural enmity to the diabolical nature, and this to bee naturally convayed or propagated▪ p. 4012. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world, or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern, and her self with her husband (who no doubt was also included in the promise) were the whole then existent race of mankinde, so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation, which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity, being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her infant progeny in the Redeemers army, against the proclaimed enemy, and to teach her posterity to do the like: For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down. 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God, she received the habitual enmity of sanctification: And this is not in her power to propagate, though sh…e may use some means that are appointed thereto, and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means, I will not now stand to discuss. 8. It is not all that are possessed with the nat…ra… enmity against the Divel himself that are the Church of Christ: For this is but a common preparative which is in all: Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of satan: But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against satan (by the obliged person) are visible members: and all that are by sanctification at a hearty enmity (habitual or actual) with the Kingdome of satan, are members of the Church called mystical or invisible. This I put as granted. 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation, and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdome for Satan and his Kingdome, are become themselves the seed of the Serpent. And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan, yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ. This much I suppose as out of controversie. But whether also the first original corrupted nature it selfe (before any sin against recovering grace) did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdome of the Redeemer? or whether the sins of later parents may propaga…e this as an addi…ional corruption in our nature, I will not now stand to discuss. OnelyOnly as to our present business, it▪s certain that the general natural enmity to Satan, may consist with an habitual friendship▪ to his ways and cause. And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature, and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation, yea, and as listed in Christs Army may have man of its priviledges; yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ, they may be under a greater curse. 10. As it is certain, that it is not onelyonly Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise, and is here called [the seed of the woman,] (as is before proved, and may be more, and is commonly granted;) so it is to be noted, that those others in whom this enmity are put, are called here [the seed of the woman,] and not the seed of Christ (though the chief of them are his seed.) And so though the promise is made to none but the the womans seed, and no exception put in against infants, or any age of all her seed: Till you can prove that infants are none of her seed, we must take this fundamental promise to extend to infants, and p. 402that very plainly, without using any violence with the Text.

Answ. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpenti…e with winding in and out, wrigling and wresting the Text; one while it is a promise, another while a precept; sometimes meant of one sort of enmity, sometimes of another; sometimes the woman under one consideration, sometimes under another; sometimes the seed of the woman comprehend▪ all the natural seed, sometime onelyonly one kind: with so many ambiguous speeches, and unproved dictates, and inconsequent inferences, that I know not what better to term it then the way of a serpent on a rock, which the Wise man said was too wonderfull for him, and one of the things he knew not, Prov. 30.20, 21. And sure when I yeeld to acknowledge this discourse as a convincing proof of the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, which Mr. B. asserts, I shall deliver my self as a Pupil to him, take him for an infallible Oracle, and profess blind obedience. But let me see what I can make of this Ridd…e. The sum of it, so far as I can collect, is this: Here is an enmity proclaimed legally, against the Devils pravity, malignity, and works; h…reby all the seed natural of the woman are obliged to list themselves in Christs Army, or the woman as a believer is to list all her infant progeny in the Redeemers Army; infants being part of her seed, and no exception put in against infants, or any age of all her seed, this fundamental promise extends to them, and all duly listed are visible Churchmembers: Ergo, here is the fundamental law or ordinance for infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed. To discern how silly and insipid these arguings are (if I may use …r. Bs. own phrase) let us grant him here is a promise and precept implied, and inquire what listing is here enjoyned, of whom, by whom, and how far this makes the listed visible Churchmembers. The listing is not here exprest, but in his book of Baptism, p. 14. he saith, They are first made Disciples, and then solemnly admitted, e…tred, or listed by baptism. P. 24 As every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army, must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging s…gne; so every one that hath right to be solemly admitted into the visible Church, must ordinarily bee admitted by baptism, Christs listing engaging signe. The persons to be listed, are according to Mr. B. mankinde, the woman and her seed, even infants, no exception being put in against infants, or any age of her seed. The persons that are to list are each man, for he saith, It is the duty of mankinde to list themselves, infants being at the parents dispose it is they that are to list them in Christs army, and this listing (which he counts duely done) makes infants visible Churchmembers. Concerning which, I grant that God doth proclaim here an enmity against the Diabolical pravi…y, malignity and works, and that it is the duty of mankinde to fight against satan, to joyn with Christ: For this is no more but that God forbids sin, and it's our duty to resist …t, and to believe and follow Christ, and here is a fundamen…al promise, that they who do so shall bruise the serpents head, or prevail against satan. Nor do I deny that it is the duty of parents, yea of all men to do what lies in them to engage persons, even i…fants to this war, provided they do it by wayes allowed and appointed, as by their p. 403prayers, vowes to God, or the like. But it is utterly false, 1. that there is any precept of listing by baptism here, for baptism is a mere positive rite of the New Testament, not enjoyned here. 2. That it is the duty of all mankinde to list themselves▪ For then it is their duty to baptise themselves. 3. That it is the duty of the woman to list her self and all her seed, For then she had been bound to baptise her self, and the children of unbelievers as well as believers, Cains seed as well as Abels, and if it were supposed that she had lived to this day, she had been bound to list all the infants at least of the professed Infidels at this day; For if it were a precept unrepealed, it must have bound her still. 4. That such a listing as Mr. Bs. words import, is either duly done, or that the listed in that manner are all visible Churchmembers. 5. That here is any fundamental promise made to persons so listed. 6. That as listed in Christs army in the manner Mr. B conceives, infants have the priviledge of Christs soldiers. None of these things denied by me, have a word of proof in all this p…olix discourse, nor do I imagine any proof for them can be from this text, and therefore conceive his discourse without proof, and like the dream of a sick man, or the dotage of a phantastick. He adds.

11. Some learned men do use contemptible arguments to prove further, That the sanctifying enmity is here promised▪ to the seed of the woman as her seed (I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward, Mr. Bedford, &c.) that is, that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman (as is explained) so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer. 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude, That the impiety of parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more then by original sin they were hindered, and therefore their faith may further them. Of which though much may be said, I shall say no more, because I will not stand on things so much questioned.

Answ. I might then well have omitted this as of no validity, but to shew the multiplicity of Paedobaptists errours.

He g…es on thus. I come next to prove from other parts of Scripture, That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to …e interpreted as including infants. 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened, do expresly comprehend infants as to be Churchmembers, then is this fundamental promise so to be understood (or then doth this also comprehend them.) But the antecedent is certain, therefore so is the consequent. The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the father of the faithful, which comprehended infants for Churchmembers: The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending infants, was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened. Which is proved thus: Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer, therefore they were the same. For there is but one such. If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant, that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers. That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied, that I know of. That the promise to Abraham was the same, is evident from Rom. 4.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest, that p. 404the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal, was the Covenant of free justification by faith; Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of Faith which Abraham had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of believers, &c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law, bu… through the righteousness of faith. Now it's certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed▪ did comprehend infants▪ The consequence of the m…jor then i… evident, that the same promise expressed more concisely, is to bee expounded by the same expressed more fully: And it's acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees.

Answ. That the fundamental promise of grace, Gen. 3.15. did include infants, was never denied by me, and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper, and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it. This I deny, that it includes all infants, or all infants of believers, and that any infant is made a visible Churchmember by that promise as the next cause, or the sole efficient, which is Mr. Bs. term: neither of these is proved by him. I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical grace, though mixt, as I have often shewed, and that it did include infants, and that they were Churchmembers, to wit, of the invisible Church of the elect, I mean so many as the Covenant of Evangelical grace was made to. I grant also that Abrahams infants in his house were visible Churchmembers, but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical▪ but by vertue of the transeunt fact before asserted by me; and if in any respect by vertue of the Covenant▪ it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises, rather th…n Evangelical. So that although I deny that from Rom. 4.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. it is proved that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant, Gen 17. and that the promises, Gen. 17.4.5, 6, 8. were additional to the main Covenant, and not as well the main Covenant as v. 7 yet I grant Mr. Bs. conclusions which he here infers, that the promises, Gen. 3.15. & 17.7. did comprehend infants, that there is but one Covenant of free justification by faith in both places, that the one may explain the other that infants were from the beginning Churchmembers, that is, members of the invisible Church of the …lect▪ But this I deny, that this is true of all, or perha…s onelyonly of the infants of believers, or that because they are of the invisible therefore they are members of the visible Church, there being more required to make visible Churchmembers, then election, the Covenant of grace, and parents faith. But Mr. B. adds.

…. That the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted, I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it. Concerning which I do make this challenge to you (with modesty and submission,) to prove if you can, that there was ever one Churchmember that had infants born to him while he was in that estate, from the beginning of the world to this day, whose infants also were not Churchmembers? Except onelyonly the Anabaptists, who refuse or deny the mercy, and so refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their infants be Churchmembers, p. 405I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time. I do again urge you to it, that you may not forget it; to prove to me, that ever there was one infant of a Churchmember in the world, since the creation to this day, that was not a Churchmember, (except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it.)

Answ. Mr. B. undertakes to prove Gods constant administration, but instead of proving sends me a challenge, and ho…ly urgeth me to answer it; which course indeed is ridiculous to the intelligent, yet subdolous, as taking much with shallow heads who know not the laws of Dispute, as if he got the better of me if I did not answer it. But let such know, 1 That it is Mr. Bs. part now to prove, mine onelyonly to answer. 2. That if I could not answer, either through def…ct of reading, memory, histories in such matters, or such like cause; yet this is no proof of Mr. Bs. assertion. 3. That I have no reason to answer Mr. Bs. questions and challenges, but his arguments: 1. Because I find a meer captious spirit in him, seeking advantage to himself from my words (which he very seldome doth rightly represent to the Reader) when he wants proof of his assertions; as appears most evidently in this his answer to my Letter, in which he hath gathered almost half his answer (besides the business propounded) from my writing to him. 2. That the understandings of men, even of Scholiers and Learned men are so superficial, or so partial, that without ever examining, yea or reading my writings, upon Mr. Bs. exclamations, and vile suggestions of me and mine answers, they do most unrighteously, and like men that seek not the truth, conclude on his side, scorn and speak evil of me and the cause I assert (which is indeed the cause of Christ) of which I have much experience. 4. Nevertheless I answer his challenge categorically thus▪ 1. No infant born of a Churchmember was a visible Churchmember in the Christian Church, or any other besides that of the Nation of the Hebrews, as I have proved before: And if we must needs take up a fashion of disputing by challenges, I challenge Mr. B. to shew me one infant who was a visible Churchmember out of the Nation of the Hebrews. …. I conceive from Acts. 16.1. 2 Tim. 1.5. that Timothy was born of a Churchmember, yet no Churchmember visible in infancy. Anabaptists refuse not the mercy of visible Churchmembership, if God had offered it to their infants; nor would they refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism, if God had commanded it: But they dare not challenge what God hath not granted, nor profane the Ordinance of Christ, by their altering it into that which he hath not appointed. Mr. B. goes on thus.