Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 9
SECT. IX.
Mr. Bs. arguments for Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed from Rom. 11. 17, 19, 24, 26, 27. in chap. 9, 10, 11. of the first part his book are answered.
CHap. 9 My 4th arg. (saith Mr. B.) to prove Gods ordinance for infants Church-membership is not repealed is from Rom. 11. 24. [how much more shall these which be natural branches be graffed into their own olive-tree?] whence I argue thus. If it be into their own olive (even the olive which they were broken off from, and of which they were naturall branches) that the Iews shall be re-ingraffed at their recovery: then Gods ordinance for their infants Church-membership is not repealed. But they shall be re-ingraffed into their own olive; therefore the said ordinance is not repealed. The antecedent is the words of the text. The reason of the Consequence lieth here; in that their own olive is their own Church; and their own Church did ever contain infants as members: therefore when they are re-ingraffed into their own Church, their infants must needs be re-ingraffed with them. I know nothing that can be said against this, but the old objection of Mr. T. [That it is the invisible Church that is here meant] to which I dare say, I have given an answer sufficient to prove that it is the Church visible. And one more argument to that end let me adde from the text. That Church which is called the Jews own, must needs be the visible Church: But this Church which Paul speaks of was the Iews own; therefore it was the visible. If I thought any would deny that the visible church was more properly called [the Iews own] than the invisible, I would waste some time to prove it; in the mean time I take it for granted.
Answ. The Consequence of this argument is to be denied. Nor doth the reason of it prove it, no not though it were granted the olive noted the Iewish visible Church (which yet is apparently false, sith the Iewish visible Church, is quite taken down by Christ his death, who hath freed us from the law having a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1.) which had infants Church-members. For neither doth it follow that the same sort of persons shall be ingraffed again, nor have the same way of ingraffing by an initial seal: For this should suppose they are now broken off by uncircumcision, and shall be graffed in again by restoring male-circumcision at the 8th. day of their birth: which are the genuine issues of this exposition of Mr. B. of ingraffing into the visible Church of Iewish infants. If this be a good reason, because the Church into which the Jews at their calling shall be re-ingraffed is their own olive, therefore their infants shall be visible Church-members, they having still infants visible Church-members, then it is a good reason they shall have either the first-born Priests or the Levits, instead of them, one High-priest, &c. because these were in their own visible Church. But my old objection that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by giving faith according to election stands still, and therefore all these arguments of Mr. B. and others are impertinently brought. And as for his additionall argument in this chapter, it is like the rest. The invisible as well as the visible Church is called the Iews own, the reason of that term being neither from the invisibility nor visibility of the Church, but from the Iews peculiar relation to Abraham the root, from whom not only by spiritual imitation of his faith, as the Gentile-believers, but also by natural generation they were descended, which the Gentiles had not. And indeed the term [foreign v. 24. their own or proper olive] opposed to the Gentiles wild olives by nature, must be from some thing peculiar to the Iews, as their proper descent from the root, and relation, at least in priority if not in propriety, to the olive from that root, and not barely from the common notion of the Church either as visible or invisible, which do alike belong to Gentiles as well as Iews, who are all alike in Christ Iesus, Gal. 3. 28. Col. 3. 11. And therefore the Major proposition [That church which is called the Iews own must needs be the visible church, meaning it as visible] is rightly denied, and if Mr. B. waste time to prove it, he will but keep his old wont. I follow him.
Ch. 10. My fifth argument (saith he) to prove the ordinance for infants Church-membership not repealed is from the same v. with the 2 following [they shall be graffed into their own olive. Blindness in part is happend to Israel, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved] with a multitude of the like places in Scripture which speak of the calling of the Iewish Nation. from whence I argue thus. If all Israel shall be graffed again into their own olive, and all be saved from their off-broken state, then infants shall be graffed in and saved with the parents: But the text saith, that all Israel shall be graffed in again, and saved from their off-broken state: therfore infants shall be graffed in and saved.
Answ. The Conclusion is granted: but this proves nothing to the present question, except it be against Mr. B. For that which he is to prove is, that infants shall be accounted members of the visible Church at the calling of the Iewish nation, and graffed in by an initiall seal: but the Conclusion is for me: For the graffing in which is accompanied with salvation is by giving faith according to election, and is of none but true believers or elect persons. As for the phrase of saving from their off-broken state, if Mr. B. mean by it as it's likely, to be saved onelyonly from their not being a visible Church, it is a manifest abuse of the Apostle, who as appears v. 26, 27. understands such a saving as turns away ungodliness, and takes away sin, which is by giving faith according to election.
But Mr. B. tells us thus. I know but two things that can be said against this. First some may say that by all Israel is meant some onelyonly, excluding all infants. To which I answer. I had rather say as God saith, than as they that thus contradict him: upon such expositions you may contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this. If God say all, at least I think it is the safest way to beleive it is all. But me thinks those men should not reject the plain letter of Scripture, that so exclaim against us from want of plain Scripture.
Answ. Though we be not necessitated to expound [all Israel Rom. 11. 26.) by some only, excluding all infants, yet they that exclaim against paedobaptists for want of plain scripture for infant-baptism may do it justly: nor are they to be charged with rejecting the plain letter of Scripture, or contradicting God, or saying otherwise than he saith, or opening a way to contradict any thing in the Bible as well as this, who expound [all] by a great part, not including every man woman and child descended from Adam or from Israel.
Sure I am all those Ancients, and later Protestant Divines (who are exceeding many) who in the point of universall grace and redemption do expound in many Scriptures [all] of a limited universality, or a great part, and those in particular that so expound [all Rom. 11. 26.] must be chargeable with all these evils, if Mr. Bs. censures be right. But I am not now a whit moved by Mr. Bs harsh expressions, being well acquainted with his rashness and vanity, though I did not Imagine half so much inconsiderateness in him before I read this Book of his as I have done since. But for the thing it self Rom. 11. 32. It is said that he might have mercy on [all] will Mr. B. say [all] notes every man woman and child? The like may be said Rom. 5. 18. John 12. 32. &c. They that please to see instances of the word [all] limited to a select number may find many in Mr. Rutherfurds Sermons on John 12. 27. &c: from page 400 to 410. As neer as I can ghess by my reading the Bible, the places wherein [all] is taken for every particular dictributively are fewer than those wherein it is taken Synechdochically for some, though many, or with some limitation. And I may justly retort on Mr. B. his words, that he that will expound [all] by every particular individual, shall be necessitated to reject to the plain letter of the Scripture, to contradict God, and open a way to contradict many things in the Bible, yea, and pervert I am assured all sorts of writers sacred and profane: But enough of this wild passage of Mr. B: though it is necessary considering the advantage it gives to the tenet of universal redemption. But Mr. B. addes. 2. Paul saith not all believers, but [all Israel] shewing fully that it will be a national recovery. Now if you can prove that any are excepted: yet if it be national, certainly infants are part of the Nation; and it is not the Nation if all the infants be excluded.
Answ. I conceive that [all Israel Rom. 11. 26. imports a National recovery; nor do I go about to prove the sort of infants excluded: yet do I not think that [all Israel] notes every Iew whatsoever, but the fulness of them, as Beza observes in his annot. in locum. But Mr. Bs reasoning however is most vain, that because infants are a part of a nation, therefore where any thing is said of a nation it is appliable to infants. I will not now repeat what is to be seen in my Postscript to my Apology s. 14. in answer to Mr. Blake, who objects the same. I need go no further than the same Epistle to the Romans ch. 15. in which the word we translate Gentiles, that is Nations, is used 10. times, and I think he that reads the chapter with any consideration will confess that scarse in any of those 10 the things said of Nations can be understood of infan…s. The like may be said of many other places, but I shall reserve them till I examine Mr. Bs. and others ridiculous expositions of Mat. 28. 19. to prove infants discipleship and baptism thence. I go after Mr. B.
2. (Saith he) If the old …bjection (that it is the invisible Church) be brought in by Mr. T. besides what is said against it already, I yet further adde from the text this strong argument. That Church which all Israel shall be saved into or re-ingraffed or recovered into is the visible and not the invisible Church: but this Church which Paul speaks of is it which all Israel shall be saved or re-ingraffed into: therefore it is the visible and not the invisible Church.
Answ. The phrase of saving into a Church visible or invisible is Mr. Bs. own, not the Apostles, nor any ap roved writers that I know: nor is it I conceive good sense: Being in the Church as in Noahs Ark preceding salvation, whereas that phrase makes salvation to precede, and the Church to be the terminus to which it tends. Therefore laying aside that phrase, I confess the medium Mr. B. useth yields a strong argument, but not for his Conclusion but mine, and is my sixth argument in my Apology pag. 73. to prove that the ingrassing is into the invisible Church, which is so manifest, that whereas Mr. B. saith of me, I can hardly imagine Mr. T. so charitable, as to say that all Israel men women and children shall be certainly saved eternally, as they must be if they be saved into the invisible Church, I reply, 1. That I perceive Mr. B. when he wrote this, did not heed my words in the place of my Apology last quoted, else he would never have suggested this of me. 2. That I could hardly imagine Mr. B. so inconsiderate, but that I find it so, as to conceive that those of whom it is said Rom. 11. 26. that they shall be saved v. 27. be turned from ungodliness, have their sins taken away, should not be ingraffed into the invisible Church of Gods elect and true believers: which will inferre, that there shall be some turned from ungodliness, have their sins taken away according to Gods covenant with them, and b… saved, who are not elect or true believers, which Arminians themselves I think will disclaim, and all save such as incline to Origens reputed opinion of saving all at last.
But Mr. B. addes. If he should so judge, yet at least this will hold, that if the whole Nation, infants and all, be so visibly saved into the Church invisible, then they are much more saved into the Church visible. But according to Mr. T. all Israel shall be saved into the Church invisible, therefore much more into the Church visible.
Answ. 1. Mr. B. puts upon me such expressions as I count little better than non-sense, of saving into the invisible and visible Church: which would intimate the saving Rom. 11. 26. to antecede their being in the invisible Church, which I conceive follows on it. 2. In his Major conditional proposition in the antecedent the term is [so visibly saved] which is not so expressed in the Minor, and thereforethe Syllogism is illogicall, having four terms. But if the argument were rectified thus or to like purpose, If the infants shall be saved or ingraffed into the invisible Church, much more into the visible, I would deny this argument if it be applied to infants in their infancy. For the one may agree to them, and not the other. And if it were good, it would prove that either abortives and still-born infants are not of the invisible Church, or else must be in the visible: which is to me no small absurdity. And whereas Mr. B. wisheth I would chew a little upon his plain arguments, I tell him that I think I have better chewed upon his and Mr. Gs. arguments about this text, than either of themselves have done, though I confess, but that Gods providence puts me on it, it is a grievance to me to spend my time about such superficial writings, and chew upon such insipid meat. And I return Mr. B. this plain answer. That though I knew all the Iews infants at their recovery shall be saved (which I do not) yet I should dare to deny them to be members of the visible Church Christian till they believe. Nor am I ashamed to say I am grown much bolder by examining my Antagonists writings to deny any thing I conceive untruth that is against my way: and that I find so much inconsiderate boldness in my Antagonists, as that they are not ashamed both on this text, and in other points of their dispute, to unsay usually in their writings against Anabaptists what they els-where averre against Arminians.
Ch. 11. My 6th arg saith Mr. B. is also from the same text, v. 17, 19, 24. [If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive-tree wert graffed in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, &c.] The branches were broken off that I might be graft in, &c. so v. 24. Whence I argue thus. If it were the same Church that the Jews were broken off from, which we Gentiles be graffed in, then our infants have right of membership as theirs had (and consequently the ordinance that some infants should be Church-members is not repealed) But it is the same olive or Church which they were broken off from, that we Gentiles are graffed in: therefore our infants have the same right of membership, &c. If their Church admitted Infants members, and our Church be the same, then ours must admit of infant-members. This argument concludeth not only that the gift and ordinance is not repealed to believing Iews, but also that it continueth to the Gentiles; what may be said against it is answered before.
Answ. If the same olive be the invisible Church (which is manifest by parallel places, Ephes. 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 14, 26. 28, 29. as I allege in my 9th argument page 74. of my Apology) then this onelyonly proves, that elect infants of Gentiles are in the same invisible Church of true believers (which I prove in my Apology page 71. 72. in my 3d and 4th argument, from their standing by faith, partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree, to be here meant, and have in this writing vindicated from Mr. G.) and then Mr. Bs. argument falls. And to speak truth, it is manifestly false, that the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews: for then they should have been circumcised, &c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Yea this was the cause of breach between Iews and Gentiles, that the Gentiles were Churches by themselves, not proselytes to them, but that they forsook the Temple and Law of Moses. They were as Cornelius, proselytes of the gate, who received the faith of the believing Jews, but were not of visible Church-Communion with them, as it appears of Cornelius whom Peter counted unclean, and was not to go in and eat with him, Acts 11. 3. therefore not of the Iewish visible Church. Yet were it granted that the Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews, except only the ceremonial accidentals, Mr. Bs. argument will not follow, if the infant visible Church-membership were from that peculiar Church-state of the Iews which is abolished, which I have in part proved in my Apology page 66. and shall much more fully do in my reply to Mr. Bs. 5th ch. What he further saith, Another argument I might bring here from the same text: in that it maketh the olive, that is the Church it self, to remain still, and onelyonly some branches broken off, and others of the Gentiles ingraffed in their stead: And if the Church it self were not broken but onelyonly some branches, then it is not taken down except onelyonly ceremonial accidentals: therefore the Apostle saith, blindness in part is happened to Israel, that is, to part of Israel: it makes for me, who conceive the invisible Church of the Jews to remain still, some branches to be broken off, to wit, that part of Israel to which blindness hapned, and the Gentiles to be ingraffed in their stead: which are none of them true of the visible Church of the Jews, which remained not; the branches broken off to whom blindness hapned, were not broken off from the visible Church of the Jews, nor were the Gentiles graffed into the visible Church of the Jews in their stead. And whereas he saith he doth purposely omit those other arguments which Mr. Cobbet and others use to prove that the Apostle speaks of the visible, I have read Mr. Cobbets Just vindic. part 2. ch. 2. and do adde to what is before said for clearing this Scripture, those animadversions, which with what is said before I take to be abundantly sufficient to shew the Paedobaptists misallegation of Rom. 11. 17. &c. for infant-baptism.