Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 69
SECT. LXIX. Mr. B. ch. 20. by his 15th. arg. from infants being once members in the universal visible Church, hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed.
CH. 20. My 15th. arg saith he, is this: If all infants who were members of any particular Church, were also members of the universal visible Church (which was never taken down;) then certainly their Churchmembership is not repealed: But all infants, that were members of any particular Church, were also members of the universal visible Church; therefore their Churchmembership is not repealed. The consequence is beyond dispute, because the universal Church never ceaseth here. And in my judgement, the whole argument is so clear, that were there no more it were sufficient.
Answ. The very conclusion, is so palpably false, that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should shew himself so besotted, as to prove so in…ustriously a thing contrary to sense, that the visible Churchmembership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed, that is, ceaseth. For who knows not that Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, with million… more are dead, and are now no members in any visible Church? If it be said, that Mr. B. means the species of infants, I reply, then he speaks non-sense and false. For the species is but one, and therefore to …erm the species which is but one [all infants] in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church, for members are individuals, nor is the universal visible Church totum universale, which may bee thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches, but totum integrale, an integral whole consisting of parts existing, and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible, and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased. It is false also that the species an be termed visible: For that is visible which may be discerned by sense, but sense discerneth not species, but individuals. If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body, as a river whi…h con…inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel, neither will this …ee for his purpose. For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease, and other infants succeed; 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people, to wit the Jews, w…o had heretofore infants visible churchmembers, they are broken off from being Gods visible Church, and so the succession of churchmembers in t…at people ceaseth, and it is that which is denied t…at in the other channel, to wit the visible Christian Church, infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants, and if the sense be thus, the whole argument is this; If infants visible churchmembership be and …ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish, then it is not repealed. But infants visible churchmembership is and ought to be taken to be in the christian visible Church as in the Jewish, ergo. of which I should deny the minor. But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning, whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false. And therefore I answer to his argument, if the parenthesis (which was never taken down) be a part of the antecedent in the major, and the sense be this [and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not] and this be supplied in the minor, I d…ny the minor, if it be not supplied I deny the syllogism to be good, as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major, if it be understood in another sense (which I count non-sense) that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian, the minor is to bee proved. As for what Mr. B. saith, the universal Church never ceaseth here, if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age (in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members) it is false, if of an universal Church visible indefinite, so as that the sense be, some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth, or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal, but in the definite of one age, and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false; Or if the sense bee (as it seemeth by what followes) That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not …heere, I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism; And say, That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church, as it is to term humanity or manhood a man, or Peter humanity or the humane nature. All know that understand the Metaphysicks, that whatever the difference bee whether formal or modal or some other, yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other: no man saith the essence of a thing (which is all one with the nature) is the thing, but that by which it is. In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible. For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential, no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church, but of the compleatness of it. But let's view Mr. Bs. proof.
1. Saith he, That there is a universal visible Church, Mr. Rutherford and others have largely proved: They of New England indeed deny a unive…sal visible governing or political Church; but not this that I speak of (as you may see in Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Allens answer to Mr. Ball) But lest any should deny it, I wi…l bring one proof or rather many in one, 1 Cor. 12, 13. We are all baptised by one spiri… into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles. Here you see it is one and the same body that all are baptised into: Now that this is the visible Church I prove thus. 1. That one body that hath distinct visible members with variety of gifts is the visible body: But this is such. 2. That one body which is visible in suffering and rejoycing is the visible body. But this is such v. 25, 26. 3. That body which is capable of schism, and must be admonished not to admit of it, is the visible body; But this is such v. 25. 4. That body which had the visible seals of Baptism and the Lords Supper was the visible body; But this was such v. 13. 5. That one body which had visible universal officers was the visible universal Church or body; But this was such: Therefore, &c.
Answ. I list not to interpose my judgement in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Hudson on the one side, and Mr. Allen, Mr. Shepheard, and Mr. Hooker on the other side, which rest much on the meaning of the term [Church] in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12, 28. & 10.32. Acts 8.…. Gal. 1.13, &c. and some Logick notions of an universal and integral whole, of a similar and dissimilar whole, the distinction of a Church entitive and organical, and the like. Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing, I shall thus far express my conceits. 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alledged by Mr. Hudson vindic. ch. 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last, 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be onelyonly out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it, and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren, though perhaps the effect might extend further. Nor do I think on the other side, that in any one of them by [the Church] is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken, which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3. Gal. 1.1…. For Saul did not make havock, persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken, nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem, but the word [Church] there is taken without quantity, an… so neither notes the universal nor particular, all nor some, but indefinitely in genere confuso, the disciples of Christ, or any of that way, Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ, Acts 22.19. them that called on his name, Acts 9.14. the Saints, Acts 26.10. wheresoever hee could reach them. And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47. 1 Cor. 10.32. 1 Tim. 3.15. and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10. whether [by the Church] be meant of what was done to or on the Church, that is the believers called out of the Gentiles, to whom hee gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius, or by the teachers in the Church, especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given. Matth 16.18. It is true, is meant the visible Church, but not the universal organical collectively taken, nor any particular Congregation organized, but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible, against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail, to keep them in, but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day. Nor is it said that the keyes should bee given to the Church but to Peter, the use of which was to bee in the calling of the Church effectually. The other text 1 Cor. 12.28. cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective, nor of a particular Congregation, not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson, nor the former, for the Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, are distinct from the Church there taken: but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective, Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles, &c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum, but in the Church distributively taken, that is, in the several Churches where they were imployed, as Peter among those of the Circumcision, Paul among the Gentiles. To which the term foreign. hath set, gives me occasion to encline, which I conceive to b…e the same with foreign gave, Eph. 4.12. and it notes not a setting, by way of law constituting such to be in the Church, but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit, as he saw good. 2. I conceive the term Catholike or universal Church (between which Mr. Bl. Coven sealed pag. 155. saith Divines distinguish) is sometimes taken in contradistinction to the Jewish National Church, sometimes as comprehending both the believers before and since the incarnation of Christ, and in both senses I conceive it notes the invisible Church, or the Church of the first born which are written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. who are fellow heirs of the same body and partakers together of the promise of Christ through the Gospel, Ephes. 3.6▪ and this is the Catholike Church in the Apostles Creed, which we believe though we see it not. 3. I acknowledge a Catholike visible Church both before and after Christs incarnation entitive, though I think not organical since Christs ascension and the Apostles decease, and that this Catholike visible Church consists of all the visible Church-members and Churches particular visible in all the world and that this is visible onelyonly in the several parts, which exist, and because these parts are in flux as a City, Army, Commonwealth, there are sometimes more sometimes fewer, sometimes the same persons may be visible Church-members and sometimes not, some parts may be formed after one manner some after another, the same sort of persons may be (as infants) in a Church v…sible of one constitution and not in another, he may bee a member (as Cornelius) in one Church that is not in another. So that the Church universal visible which I acknowledge is not uniform, and is onelyonly as in numbring a total sum of many particulars cast up. 4. I conceive the text Mr. B. alledgeth serveth not his purpose. For though I think it is meant of the Church visible, yet not in respect of all the parts of the Church visible, but those that are so visible as that they are also of the invisible Church, to wit, true believers. 1. Because it is said that th…y are by one spirit baptised into one body, and made to drink into one spirit, now this must be understood of that unity of spirit which unites to Christ, not barely in respect of common gifts to the sanctified and unsanctified. But this cannot bee said of all the vi…ble members of the visible Church, therefore it is not meant of them. 2. Because the many members▪ termed one body are termed Christ, v. 12. which can bee meant of Christ mystical onelyonly, for those that are onelyonly Christ by profession are not termed Christ, but those who are spiritually uni…ed to him▪ now those are one spirit, 1 Cor. 6.17. new creatures, 2 Cor. 5.17. to whom there is no condemnation, Rom. 8.1. of his flesh and of his bones, Ephes. 5.30, 31, 32. And to his reasons I answer, that though they prove the body meant 1 Cor 12.13. was visible, yet they prove not that all parts of the visible Church are comprehended in that body, but onelyonly such as were also of the invisible.
2. Saith Mr. B. That the Jews infants were members of this universal visible Church, I prove thus: There is but one visible universal Church or body: therefore they must needs be of this one, or be unchurched. See Gal. 3.16. Ephes. 4 4, 1 Cor. 1….12.
Answ. The unity there ascribed is not visible but invisible, to wit, by the union of the same spirit, and the body though visible in respect of some parts, yet is not said to bee one in resp…ct of any but those who are invisibly also joyned to that body, or for their sake, as Mr. B. pag. 340 If Christ Gal. 3.16. bee not meant of Christ personal, it is certain it is meant of no more then Christ mystical, or the Church invisible, and so 1 Cor. 12.12. the like is to be said. And that it is so Ephes. 4.…. appears from the words where these are joyned one body and one spirit. Therefore I deny that those texts are meant of the universal visible Church as visible, but onelyonly of that part of the universal visible Church of that time which was also of the invisible, which is one by unity of the same spirit. As for the universal visible Church it cannot bee said to bee one in several ages numerically, for it is but the total of all the members then existent (for if they bee not existent among the living they are not visible) and they are sometimes the same, sometimes others (hee that is now of the visible Church may cease by death or apostasie to be so to morrow) sometimes more sometime fewer, but they are one in respect of profession of the same faith, or in some other visible appearance to be of Gods people. Now the infants of the Jews might be members of the visible Church universal of a former age, but were not of the universal visible Church of that age, which was not one numerically with the universal visible Church of a former age, nor meant to be so, 1 Cor. 12.13.
2. Saith he, Every one that is a mamber of the particular, must needs be a member of the universal; else one might be a part of the part, and yet not a part of the whole.
Answ. It is true of the universal made up of those parts, but he may be a member of the particular Church of uncircumcised, as Cornelius, who is not a member of the particular Church of the circumcised; and he may be a member of the universal visible of one time, who is not a member of the universal visible of another time. A Jew before the offer of Christ might be a member of the Jewish Church national, as the Pharisees, to whom John Baptist, Ch…ist, and his Apostles preached; yet were not members of the universal Church visible when they rejected the offer of Christ. Infants were members of the visible universal Jewish Church, who were not so of the universal visible Christian in another …ge. Mr. Bs mistake is I conceive in this, that he thinks the universal visible Church is one and the same in every age, which is a gross mistake.
But he saith, This is all beyond dispute; and Mr. T. denied none of it, when I urged it on him, he confesseth, 1. There is a universal Church visible. 2. That the Jews Church was not the whole universal. 3. That every one that is a member of a particular Church, is also a member of the universal. 4. And that the Jews infants were members of the universal. 5. And this universal Church is not dissolved.
Answ. I have made some search whether ever I confessed that this universal Church visible of which the Jews infants were members is not dissolved, and do not remember or find that ever I did so; if I sholud, I do revoke it, as being most false: and I rather think (if I did yeeld any thing that seemed like it) that what I confessed was, that the nature or essentials of the Church are not dissolved, in stead of which (as I ghess by what follows) Mr. B. put this as my confession. He adds.
What then remains to be denied? Why this is all that he saith to the whole [that their membership in the vniversal Church was onelyonly by reason of their membership in the particular; and therefore ceased with it.] And how is this proved? Why Mr. T. saith it is so, and that is the best proof, and all that I could get.
Answ. It was enough when I was a respondent that I said so, it had been Mr. Bs. part to have disproved it: But I did then think, and do still think it so plain, that it needed not proof; and (as very a wrangler as Mr. B. is) I think Mr. B. grants as much when he saith, that every one that is a member of a part is a member of the whole, and that the individual Church that then was, was broken off for unbelief; and I know no visible Church but an individual. Methinks it is all one as if I had said, the finger is onelyonly a member of the whole body in that it is a part of the hand, and when the hand ceaseth to be a part of the body, the finger ceaseth to be a member. But yet M.B. will try whether hee can disprove this any better.
1. Saith he, I think I have sufficiently proved, that even the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, but onelyonly the accidental ceremonies; and the individual Church that then was, is broken off for unbelief; but the Olive still remained.
Answ. The visible Church Jewish could be no other then the individual Church Jewish, which if broken off, though the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed, and the Olive still remained, yet the infant Churchmembership which came onelyonly in with the Jewish national Church, might and did cease.
2. Saith he. If the Jews Church were repealed, yet he that will affirm that the whole species of infants are cast out of the universal visible Church, must prove it well: For if I find that they were once in it, I need no more proof that they remain in, till some one shew me where it is revoked, which is not yet done by any that I know of.
Answ. The repealing of the nature of the Jews Church, and of the Jews Church (which intimate that the nature of the Jews Church and the Jews Church were a law capable of repeal) is a piece of Baxterian non-sense, which I use not. That the Jewish Church national is broken off, and that churchmembership by birth is altered into churchmembership by faith, is so fully proved before, sect. 50, 51, 52. besides what elsewhere is said by me, that I count it superfluous to add any more. If it satisfie not Mr. B. it's to be ascribed to his pertinacy in his opinion, which to be his proper temper I was told long ago, and much experience of him by my self and others find to be true.
3. Saith he, The universal Church is more excellent far then any particular, and so our standing in the universal Church is a far higher priviledge then our standing or membership in any particular: Therefore it will not follow, that infants lose the greater, because they lose the lesser; and that they are cast out of the universal, because they are cast out of the particular.
Answ. The universal may be more excellent then any particular extensively, because the universal comprehend the most excellent part, and the rest also; but not intensively, sith all the excellency may be from one part. Christ the head is not the universal body, and yet the whole body is not more excellent intensively then Christ, that is, hath not more perfection then Christ; for all the excellency in all the members is Christs, and from Christ. Yet the standing in the universal is not a higher priviledge then in the particular Church; yea, if there be a standing in the universal besides the standing in the particular, yet the standing in the particular is a higher priviledge. Else why do Ministers exhort men to joyn with some particular Church, and to submit to their Pastors? is it not for their advantage? Sure Mr. B. who condemns Seekers, and those that are separ…tists from a particular Church, and those that live out of communion with any particular Church as Christians at large, and are so members of the universal Church, should not think they have a higher priviledge then members of a particular Church. If he do, he doth wrong them in condemning them, and disswading them from that state which is a higher priviledge. Much less is it true concerning infants, who are not visible Churchmembers, but as they stand in the particular Church. For they are not by their own profession visible Churchmembers, but meerly in that they are part of that nation which God takes for his people, as God did the Hebrew nation, and no other before nor since. This is clear, if we suppose the whole Hebrew nation destroyed except one male infant, this male infant would be no visible Churchmember, there being nothing by which he is discernable to sense to be more one of Gods people then another infant, though there we…e many Churches of Gentiles …n other places: Whereas on the other side, if a Christian by profession were in no particular Church, but stood alone in an Island of unbelievers, remote from any particular Churches, I presume Mr. B. would say he were a visible member of the universal, though of no particular. Whence it follows, that if infants lose their standing in the particular Church Jewish, they lose their standing in the universal.
4. Saith he, Persons are first (in order of nature, or time, or both,) members of the universal Church, before they are members of any particular▪ So was Noah, Lo…, Abraham, and all men before Christ, and so are all since Christ. The Eunuch in Acts 8. was baptized into the universal visible Church, and not into any particular. It is so with all others: It is the general use and nature of Baptism; they are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and so into the catholick Church; but not into any particular Church: If any such thing be, it is secondary, and accidental and additional, and no proper end of Baptism. So that it being first in order, that we are entred into the visible universal Church, it is likely to be of more durable continuance.
Answ. Avoiding unnecessary disceptations with Mr. B. about the general use and nature of Baptism, and about the priority in order, or time, or both, according to which persons are members of the universal visible Church afore they are of the particular, I do agree, that persons who were visible Churchmembers by their sensible profession of the true God, were members of the universal afore they were of the particular: But deny this concerning infants, for the reason before given.
5. Saith he, It is no good consequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church, or of the Jews particular Church, to breaking off from the universal; therefore this will not prove infants are broke off. If a Jew had been forced into a strange countrey, yet there, both he and his children had been Churchmembers of the universal Church. When all the Jews were scattered abroad in captivity, so that they had neither temple, nor altar, nor priest, but perhaps one live in one Town, and another in another, as they do at this day; you could not say, that these were of the visible particular Church of the Jews, though you might say still that they were Abrahams seed, and they and their children were members of the visible universal Church.
Answ. The consequence is good as I frame it, Their churchmembership visible ceaseth, who were visible Churchmembers onelyonly in that they were part of that visible Church which now ceaseth; But so it was concerning infants visible churchmembership, ergo, it ceaseth: Which is different from that which Mr. B. imposeth on me. To his suppositions I say, that they were in that case members of the visible particular Church of the Jews, which was a particular Church, and so accounted even in their captivity, though not in a flourishing estate as in their own countrey. And for the instance of Keturahs children when they left the Church of Abrahams family, if their infants were visible Churchmembers (which I conceive they were not) then it was because they joyned themselves as proselytes to the Hebrew people, which I think is not true, and therefore conceive if any of Keturahs children who left the Church of Abrahams family, professed the God of Abraham, they were members of the universal, but not their infants. And …or what Mr. B. adds, …f a Jew then, or a Christian now, were cast upon the coasts of America, where he should never be a member of a particular Church more, yet he should be a member of the universal still; I grant it, while they profess God in Christ. And for what he adds, Neither Joseph, Mary, nor Jesus in his infancy were unchurched, because they lived in Aegypt (though I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Churchmember property; but I pass by that) I grant it, for they remained members of the Jewish Church then when they were in Aegypt ▪ as I presume Mr. B. counts those of his Church of Kederminster members still, who may by imprisonment, traffique, service of the State in war, sickness, or otherwayes be absent thence in England, or forreigne parts against their will.
6. Saith he, Again, to lose their standing in the visible universal Church, is to lose their place in the visible body (1 Cor. 12.13.) and in the house o… the living God, 1 Tim. 3.15. the pillar and ground of truth: But to be removed from one particular Church, or from every particular Church, is no casting out of Christs body, or Gods house: therefore it will not follow upon the removal from a particular Church, that they are removed from the universal; especially when we are not speaking of individual infants, but of the whole species. So that I think this argument is unanswerable: Infants were members of the universal visible Church (as Mr. T. confesseth) This is the Church that we are now baptized into; and this Church constitution is not altered or taken down: therefore infants membership of this Church is not taken down, what ever it be of the Jews particular Church.
Answ. The consequence is good as I framed it in the paragraph next before, yea though Mr. Bs. two propositions here be granted: Nor can Mr. B. overthrow it, …ll he prove that the Jews infants had a standing in the universal visible Church, severed from their standing in the Jewish particular, for which he hath yet brought no proof. His saying that he spake of the whole species, not of individual infants, makes his speeches to appear ridiculous non-sense. For the whole species hath no standing in the visible Church universal or particular, nor can be said to be admitted in, or cast out, or removed from one or every particular Church. These things cannot be said of a species, but of individuals, sith a species is conceived abstractively from all individuificating circumstances of time, place, &c. which must be conceived in visible Churchmembership and removal or casting out. And that we are baptised now into that universal visible Church in which infants were members, is utterly false, and that the Church constitution is altered in that the Jewish particular Church ceaseth i… proved before, therefore there is not…ing in this argument unanswerable. As for what Mr. B. adds to this Chapter p. 339. I finde not that …e brings any more strength in it which needs further answer. He refers me to Mr. Hudsons vindic. but tels me not what part he would have me answer, perhaps there is not any thing in the book that opposeth mee besides what is already answered, and I am not yet so obsequious to Mr. B. as to go ov…r a whole book to finde an adversary to fight with; if Mr. B. kn…w any strength in it to oppose me with, he should have himself produced it or referred me to the particular place where I might finde it. As for the texts which hee cites out of Mr. Hudson, an answer is fu…ly made to what hee brings them for in the 2d. pa…t of this Rev…ew, …ect 9. in which Mr. B. and others may see how shamefully they abuse Scripture, to prove a church national comprehending infants like the Jewish in the time of the Go…pel. And I add, that if Mr. B. weigh Mr. Hudsons words in his vindic. ch. 4 sect. 5. p. 93, 94. I acknowledge the Jews to be a national Church. But my description of the Church Catholike was of the Church as it is now, s…nce the partitition wall is broken down, f…r then it became Catholike. I conceive there were believers of the sons of Keturah that d…d not partake of all the priviledges of the Jewish Church except they became proselytes. It is the Evangelical Catholike Church which my question is about; into which the Jewes themselves being converted were admitted by a new initial seal, viz. baptism, and did not stand in it by their former national membership, but received a Catholike membership by baptism, I conceive that a man of any nation, converted to be a visible believer is a member of the Church Catholike en…itive, and hereby hath right to all Church priviledges that belong to the whole Church, Gods method us…d in the national Church of the Jews, b…ing in populo Israelitico, m…st …eeds differ from the method in populo Catholico; hee will finde that learned man speaking as much for my purpose as his own. They tha… boldly affirm that Christs Covenant, his sati…faction, his Church, his sealing, extend to any more then elect, joyn with the Arminians against the Scripture and the most approved Protestants, and the contrary contains no desperate expressions, as Mr. B b…ing m…slea… speaks▪ Mr. Hudsons words pag. 220. are not right. If any hold that the believing Jews children are still Churchmembers, and yet deny that the Gentiles children are so hee may hold it still notwithstanding the assault made by Mr. B. here. For by the taking down the partition wall, Ephes. 2.14. and the removing the enmity v. 16. Jews and Gentiles are not made one visible Church after the Jewish frame, but one by faith, and by it the Gentiles are cl…ansed, A…s 15.9. not a whole nation parents and children as the Jewish Church, but believers repenting, Acts 11.17, 18. one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, &c. Eph. 4.5 6. proves not the Gentile and Jewish Church visible to be the same, but the invisible of both. Gal. 6.15. hath not a word tending to prove that there is the same reason of Jews and Gentiles infant visible churchmembership, but of the equal interest in Christ of Gentiles who are new c…eatures, as of the Jews. It is no part of Pauls Epistles, and therefore not much of their substance to prove the taking in of the Gentiles, and graffing them into the Olive which the Jews were of, if by it were meant the visible Church Jewish, but it is most palpably false. The discipling nations, the Kingdoms of the world becomming Christs, Rev. 11.15. prove not infant… discipleship, or churchmembership. All hitherto brought by Mr. B. hath yeilded no sufficient proof, let's view the rest.