Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 62
SECT. LXII. M…. Bs. 9th. and 10th. Qu. about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Churchmembership, and his eight additionals are answered.
THe next Qu. saith he, that I should speak to is, whether these Laws, or Covenants, or promises, are capable of a revocation, or repeal? And I shall take this for a question that needs no further debate, among men that know what a Law or Promise is. Gods immutability and perfection may make some …aws unrepealable, while the subject remains: but otherwise the thing it selfe is capable of it. OnelyOnly where a promise or law is but for a limited time, when the time is expired it ceaseth, and the cessation is as to the nulling of it, equal to a revocation or abrogation. I put in this question, lest you should hereafter change your minde and say, that indeed it is a law, or promise, or covenant, by which the right of Churchmembership is conferred, and infants dedicated to God: but it is but a transeunt law or covenant.] Answ. If so then it is either immediately or presently transeunt, or at a certain limited time onelyonly, when it will cease. The former is certainly false and intollerable. For 1. they are promises and laws for the future, and therefore cease not immediately. 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promiser and mutable Lawmaker in the world, if his promise and his lawes cease as soon as they are made. Nay it makes them to be no lawes or promises. 3. It was one standing law and promise that belonged to the Nation of the Jewes successively. And God did not make his promise anew to every infant that was made a Churchmember, nor renew his law to every parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the signe of Circumcision. Were not the circumcised Israelites in the Wilderness made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force. And did former Laws oblige to Circumcision till Christ? Else there were but few members, nor but few that circumcised warrantably, if the promise and precept did extend but to the person that it was first delivered to, and every one else must likewise have a personal promise and precept. The mother of Christ cannot then be proved to have been a Churchmember in infancy. If it be said that these promises were limited in the making of them, to a certain time when they were to cease, I say when that's proved we shall believe it, which I have not yet seen done.
Answ. The occasion of this question I conceive to have been the words in my second Letter, [Wherefore I still press you that you would shew me where that law, ordinance, statute or decree of God is, that is repealable, that is, which may in congruous sense be either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law for ever.] The reason of my speech was, because I perceived by his former Letter, Mr. B. made his law unrepealed to be by promise and precept. Now though I conceived a precept might in congruous sense be said to be repealed, yet I conceived a promise (which it seems is the law he means) not in congruous sense repealable. For though a promise be a law to the promiser, yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed. 'Tis true, the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth, but that cannot be repealed; that which is done, cannot be infectum, not done. The obligation of the promise may cease, if it were limited to a certain time, and that expired; or if it were upon condition, and that fails; or to a person not existent, or of a thing not feasible, or unlawfull: The former is not by repeal, but by expiration, which Mr. Cawdrey doth distinguish from re…eal and substitution, Of the Sabbath, part 1. ch. 2. & part 3. ch. 3. The later are not by repeal of the promise (for it stands in force as much as ever, (but by accident through intervenient impediments there is for present an intermission of the obligation. Repeal properly is by an after declaration, which cannot be congruously said of God, that he did promise indeed such a thing, but now he will not promise it, or will not stand to his promise, it were to make God fickle, and unfaithful. And therefore I expected a Law of Precept to make infants visible Churchmembers, to bee assigned by Mr. B. for mee to prove repealed, and not a law of promise, which is not in congruous sense repealable, and therefore a repeal properly so called not to be expected of me. Which being rightly conceived answers this question, and saves me the reply to what he saith, to prevent an imaginary change of my minde and assertion not yet delivered.
He adds. And it falls in with the last question, which is, whether these promises be indeed revoked and ceased, and these laws repealed or ceased. And here it is that I have long expected your solid proof, together with the satisfactory answer to my arguments to the contrary. And so I shall leave this task in your hands. Sure I am that Christ never came to cast out of the Church, but to gather more in: much less to cast out all the infants, even all of that age in which himself was head of that Church: But to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered, Joh 11.52. And therefore he would of… have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea, even the national Church that then was unto himself, as the true head, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and they would not. It was not because he would not (as intending a new frame, where infants could have no place) but because they would not, and so cast out themselves and their infants. Certainly it is the joy of the formerly desolate Gentiles, that they shall have many more children then she that had an husband, and not fewer, Gal. 4.25, 26, 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise, even that promise which extended to the infants with the parents. Gal. 4.28.
Answ. I have examined all that Mr. B. saith in his answer to the 8th. question, and do profess that I finde no promise, no not in Gen. 3.15. of infants visible Churchmembership, or any precept but that of circumcision, Gen. 17. which Mr. B. confesseth to be repealed in respect of the outward act, and for the dedicating of a childe to God by prayer to God to sanctifie it, or vow to bring it up for God if God give life, &c. or adjuration that they should cleave to God left in writing, or any other way upon record, I still allow it, and so need prove no repeal. So that in truth I see no reason Mr. B. should expect that I should perform his task, of proving a repeal of that which is not, but that he should make good the task I impose on him to prove such a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise or precept unrepealed, which I expect to be done at latter Lammas; And to his confident speeches I reply. Sure I am from Luk. 2.34. Joh. 9.39. that Jesus Christ came that many of the Jewish Church might be left or cast out of his Church, from Matth. 28.19. and other places before alledged, that he intended to leave all infants out of his visible Church since his comming in the flesh, though he were an infant head of the Church, that though he died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad, Joh. 11.52. yet hee intended not to gather them into a visible Church national comprehending infants, that he preached not to any infants, nor by his Disciples baptised any of them, that it is false which Mr. B. saith, that he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea, even the national Church that then was, unto himself as the true head, as his visible Church, from Matth. 28.19. Mark …6.15, 16. and the course he, John Ba…tist, and the Apostles followed, that he did intend a new frame of his Church visible, where infants could have no place, that Hierusalem which is above, the Covenant of the Gospel had more children in the Gentile Churches then the Covenant of the Law in the Jewish Church, though infants were not visible members in the Christian Church as they were in the Jewish; that the promise meant Gal 4.28. is not a pro…ise to a believer and his natural seed of visible Churchmembership, much less to every visible professour and his seed, but a promise of righteousness and blessing, and the spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe, as is plain from Gal. 3.7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 29. But Mr. B. hath yet more work for me.
Before I end, saith he, I shall be bo…d to put two or three questions to you out of your last Letter. Qu 1. Whether the circumcised servants of Israel sold away to another nation, and so separated from the Civil state of Israel▪ did …o nomine cease to be Churchmembers, though they forsook not God? …nd so of the infants if they were sold in infancy? If you affirm it, then prove it. If you deny it, then infants might bee Churchmembers that we…e not of the Commonwealth.
Answ. Such servants and infants were members of the Jewish Commonwealth, as they were of the Church, in right undoubtedly, in fact if they owned the Jews God and Moses Laws, and submitted to the Senate of Elders, so far as they knew and could be permitted, if they did not, though they forsook not God, yet they were neither of the Jewish Church, nor Commonwealth, as Cornelius, Acts 10th, was not of the Jewish Church or policy. None was of right of the Jewish Church, who was not of the Commonwealth; even then when they were violently held under a forraign power (as when they were under the Chaldean Persian, Greek and Roman Empires) they did submit to both though with much reluctancy.
Qu. 2. If (as you say) it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people, were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off, or not, who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem, which came to be a Patriarchal seat. Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jewes Churchmembers in infancy? If no, then it was somewhat else then unbelief that broke them off.
Answ. The believing Jews were not broken off from the people of God, but from the Jewish people or Church national which rejected Christ: these believing Jews continued a famous Church after some time of publishing the Gospel and the Jews presecuting the faith, sepated from the Jewish Church, not having infants Churchmembers, and they were broken off from the Jewish Church national not by unbelief, but by faith in Christ to which they did adhere, and could not bee conjoyned to the Jewish Church without rejection of Christ. Mr. B. addes.
If yea, then Qu. 3. Whether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the partition wall, and making of two one Church, would have such a Linsey Woolsy Church of party colours, or several forms: so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have infant members, and the Church at Rome should have none. Jews infants should be members and not Gentiles.
Answ. Christ came to cast out the unbelieving Jews, not from the Jewish Church national, they continued still in it, but from the invisible Church of true believers which was in that nation, to which was joyned the Gentile Church of true believers, which were all of one sort, whether at Rome or Hierusalem, to wit, all that had one spirit, one faith, one baptism; not one infant in the visible Church Christian either at Rome or Hierusalem.
Qu. 4. If unbelief brake them, will not repentance graff them in? And so should every repenting believing Jews infants be Churchmembers?
Answ. Faith and repentance will ingraff every penitent believer into the Church invisible, the profession thereof will ingraff them into the visible Church, but not their infants, though the believer bee a Jew.
Qu▪ 5. Was not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual, and gathered in a spiritual way?
Answ. The invisible was, the visible Jewish national was not.
Qu. 6. How prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame, that infants were members? or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age?
Answ. I say not that it was a blemish, but that it was a more imperfect state of the Church then in that and other re…ards. The later question is answered Sect. 50, 51, 52. before.
Qu. 7. In what regard is the new frame better…d by casting out infants which were in the old?
Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onelyonly believers, the Church is more spiritual.
Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith (in the Articles necessary to salvation) repentance and obedience? And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old; save onelyonly that a more full and express revelation of Christ, requireth a more full ex…ress faith?
Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult, it being hard to determine what Articl…s were necessary to salvation, which is a question so hard, that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onelyonly say, that I know not what profession each Jew did make, or was to make. I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch. 27. I finde idolaters, blasphemers, and some others adjudged to death, yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws, that idolaters, and such great sinners were cast out of the Church, but were members of it. The later is answered before often enough.
Mr. B. tels me. You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions, and towards the middle that occasioneth the first. As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers, I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it.
Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well, that I expected I should have questions enow, though I desired onelyonly a few Texts, its his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted, and serve to weary the reader and respondent, and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist, though without cause. But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words, when I desired onelyonly a line or two about his texts, and how ill he deals with me and the reader▪ who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Churchmembership, the denial of which he makes so hainous, and from which he argues so much, I leave to the considerable Reader to judge. But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me, after all my work in answering him, I must be corrected ere I be dismissed.