SECT. I.

R. B. SIR, A probability of doing or receiving good, is to me a call to action. Seeing no such probability, I told you at first my purpo­ses to forbear any further debates with you, till you had better answered what is said. In your next you seemed to deal so plainly, as if some small probability of good did yet appear: But in your third you fly off again and eat your own words, and jumble things in much confusion, so that I now re­turn again to my former thoughts. For you that expresly say and unsay, and contradict your self, are not likely to be brought to a candid manage­ment or fair issue of the Dispute. You'l sure think it no great matter to be driven to a self­contradiction (which with others is to lose the Cause) who so easily and expresly run upon it your self.

" Mr. T 's Answer, It was a call sufficient, &c.

[Page 14]Reply. I must be the discerner of my own Call or Reasons to write: time is precious: As for his offence at Mr. M. and Mr. Firmin for charging him with sophistry, and at Mr. Ford for charging him with railing, and Mr. Gataker for doubting it is his disposition to braze his forehead; and his own angry words hereupon, they concern not our pre­sent business.

SECT. II.

R. B. IN your second you say [I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy, not by any promise or precept, then visible Church-members, that is, of the Congregation of Israel; I do not confess, that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but only a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, &c.] In your third you say, [For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai, and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God, and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people, and requiring of them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. & Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning in­fants visible Church-membership, or precept for Parents or others concerning the solemn admission of Infants as visible Church-members besides Cir­cumcision, as in your book of Baptism you assert.] [Page 15] Before there was no [Law or Ordinance deter­mining it should be so, but only a fact] now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so, but [not such as I assert in my book.] And if I should shew you never so many, you may reply, they are not such as I assert in my book, and waste the time in that trial, when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book: For this is but to lead us about to trifling.

‘Mr. T's Answer. There is no shadow of a contradiction, &c.’

Reply. Let the impartial Reader judge.

SECT. III.

R. B. TO make any clear work upon the things in question, we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly, many of which you too much confound. The first question in order fit to be resolved is, [whether Infants before Christs in­carnation were Church-members, or not?] you grant they were: and therefore this is past dispute with us. The second question and the first resol­ved, is [what Church it is that Infants were members of?] This you give me occasion to take in the way, because you twice explain your mean­ing, when you confess them Church-members, by an [ i. e. of the congregation of Israel.] By which you seem to imply two things: First, that none but the Infants of the Congreation of Israel were Church-members: Secondly, that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is [Page 16] convertible with the congregation of Israel.] The third question is, what it is that gives the Israe­lites that denomination of [the Congregation of Israel] of which Infants were members? For you jumble both together, both causes Civil, and Eccle­siastical, and of both those that make to the being and well-being. So that our enquiry must be, whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense?] and what consti­tuteth it formally? For in this you speak in dark ambiguities. The fourth question is, [Whether there was any Law, Ordinance or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein, or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement, and so to membership; and any promise, grant or Cove­nant, conferring the right of Church-membership and the consequent priviledges to Infants?] To this you say both Yea and Nay, if I can under­stand you, or at least as to much of the question concerning the being, and part of the effect of the precept and promise. Yet you conclude, that you [do not conceive that Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the Covenants, or the precepts fore-named, but by Gods transeunt fact.] I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant, because your tying the effect to the tran­seunt fact doth exclude them. Here we are cast upon these questions next. The fifth question, [Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant, (or as I shall prove) which yet make not Infants Church-members?] The sixth questi­on, [Whether there be any transeunt fact of God, [Page 17] which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the Infants of Israel Church-members?] The seventh question, [Whether those which you have assigned be such facts?] The eighth question, [Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws, precepts, or grants which I maintain?] this you insist upon. The ninth questi­on, [Whether such laws, preceps or grants as I shall prove, are capable of a repal or revocation?] The tenth question, [Whether they are actually re­voked or repealed?]

‘Mr. T's Answer. The eighth question is the only question needful to be resolved, &c.’

Reply. If I do too much it is but your passing it by, and it will not trouble you.

SECT. IV.

R. B. BEfore all these questions are well hand­led, we should easily be convinced that it had been better either to have let all alone, or else, if we must needs have the other bout, at least to have agreed on our terms, and the stating of the questions better before we had begun. And I think that even that is not easie to do. For when I desired your plain, exact and full explication of one word [transeunt fact] and you tell me you have plainly, fully and exactly told me your meaning: It falls out, either through the unhap­py darkness of my own understanding, or yours, that I know but little more of your mind than I did before, and that you seem to me to have raised [Page 18] more doubts and darkness than you have resolved and dissipated. Yet being thus far drawn in, I shall briefly say somewhat to the several questions, not following your desires to answer one alone: which cannot be done to any purpose while the fore­going are unresolved, because it is the clearing up of truth, and not the serving of your present ends in your writings now in hand that I must intend.

‘Mr. T's Answer. I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler — so many doubts seem not to be from the darkness of the un­derstanding, but either from the lightness of the fancy, or the bent of the will, to find a way to blunt the Readers attention, &c.’

Reply. This is not the Controversie: Is your judgement alike right of persons as of Doctrines?

SECT. V.

R. B. THE first question being resolved that Infants were once Church-members, to the resolving of the second question, I shall prove these two Propositions. 1. That it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members. 2. The Infants of Israel were members of the universal visible Church, and not only of that particular Congregation. The first I have proved already in my book. And 1. Isaac was a Church-member, yet none of the Con­gregation of Israel; it was not Israel till Jacobs days. If you say that by the [Congregation of [Page 19] Israel] you mean [the seed of Abraham which had the promise of Canaan] Yet 2. I say, that Ishmael and Abrahams seed by Keturah and Esau had none of the promise, and yet were Church-members in their infancy. [In Isaac shall thy seed be called] that is, that seed which had the pro­mise of Canaan. And so it was confined to Ja­cob, who got the blessing and the birthright, which Esau lost, and was excluded, yet was of the Church from his infancy. The Son of the bond­woman was not to be heir with the Son of the free-woman, yet was Ishmael an Infant member. If you say, that by [the Congregation of Israel] you mean all the natural seed of Abraham: I add, 3. The children of his bond-men born in his fami­ly, or bought with mony, were none of Abrahams natural seed, and yet were Church-members in their infancy. If you go yet further, and say, that by [the Congregation of Israel] you mean all that were at the absolute dispose of Abraham or his successors, and so were his own: I add, 4. The Infants of free Proselytes were none such, and yet were Church-members. If you yet go fur­ther, and say, that you mean by [the Congrega­tion of Israel] any that came under the govern­ment of Abraham or his successors: then I add, 5. That the Sichemites, Gen. 34. were not to [...]ome under Jacobs government, but to be his allies and neighbours, being so many more in number than Jacob, that they concluded rather that his cattle and substance should be theirs; yet were they cir­cumcised every male, and so were made members of the visible professing Church. For it was not [Page 20] the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to, without the thing signified: For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised, was not in the defect of the external abscission; for so Moses own son, and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach, and all the females continually: But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God, and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did. And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing, if it be not used for engagement to God, even into his name; so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision, unless it be used as an engaging sign, and they be cir­cumcised to God.

‘Mr. T's Answer. By [the Congregation of Israel] I mean the same with the Hebrew peo­ple or house of Abraham — by an anticipa­tion, &c.’

Reply. 1. That not only the Infants of Abra­hams house were Church-members shall be pro­ved.

2. Here he is forced to take in the Children of Keturah, Ishmael, and Esau, into [the Con­gregation of Israel]; And so to extend Infants Church-membership further than the Jews Com­mon-wealth. For let the Reader judge, whether the posterity of Ishmael, Esau and Keturah were of that Republick, or Proselytes either, and not usually enemies.

[Page 21] 3. He is forced to extend Infants Church-membership to whole Cities that would be but their Allies, as the Sichemites were: For when he saith [They were one people] by consent, he could not say that they were to be their sub­jects and so members of their Republick. And they may be [one people] by mixture and con­federacy, without subjection. And there is no in­timation that the Sichemites were to part with their former Governours and be subject to Ja­cob. And then if all the Kingd [...]ms about would but have been accordingly Jacobs confederates, it seems Mr. T. must yield that their Infants had been visible Church-members.

SECT. VI.

R. B. IT was then the duty of all the Nations round about (if not of all the Nations on earth, that could have information of the Jew­ish Religion) to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision. That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jews must do it, is commonly confessed: that it must extend to Infants, the case of the Sichemites (though deceitfully drawn to it by some of Jacobs sons) doth shew, and so doth the Jewish practice which they were to imitate: that the same engage­ment to the same God is the duty of all the world, is commonly acknowledged, though Divines are not agreed whether the distant nations were obliged to use Circumcision the Jewish sign. The [Page 22] best of the Jews were zealous to make Proselytes, and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their best for the salvation of others. To think such charitable and holy works unlawful, is to think it evil to do the greatest good. And if they must perswade the neigh­bour nations to come in to God by Covenant en­gagement, they must perswade them to bring their children with them, and to devote them to God as well as themselves. For the Jews kn [...]w no other covenanting or engaging to God. As the Sichemites must do, so other nations must do: For what priviledge had the children of the Siche­mites above the rest of the world?

‘Mr. T's Answer. The argument in form would be thus: If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by circumcision, then it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members, &c.’

Reply. 1. You should have said [that would have been Church-members had they done that duty]. But you can best serve your own turn. 2. One Supream Power maketh one Republick (with the subjects); And many Soveraigns make many Republicks (as all grant): Therefore if all the Nations about had engraffed themselves into the Congregation of Israel but as the Sichemites did, they had not made one Republick, as to humane Soveraignty: I presume to tell you my thoughts of such a case (and so of the Sichemites): It was the glory of Israel to be a Theocracy: God was their Soveragin; not only as he was of all [Page 23] the world ( de jure and by overruling their hu­mane Soveraign:) but by special Revelation doing the work a Soveraign himself: He made them Laws (and not Moses): He appointed them Cap­tains under him by Revelation: He decided cases by Oracle: He gave them Judges that were Pro­phets, and acted by his extraordinary spirit. Though Moses is called a King, he was but an Official Magistrate, Captain and Prophet: [A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you like unto me, &c.] saith he: which had imme­diate respect to the form of Government and man­ner of succession, (as differing from the way of Kings which the Israelites sinfully preferred af­terward, casting off this special Theocracy) though ultimately it intended Christ. Now, this being so, the Sichemites or any other nations who would have taken God for their Soveraign, and come under this special prophetical Theocracy, (which Circumcision engaged them to as respe­cting the Laws to which it bound them) had been so far united to Israel. But how far might this have extended? To the rest that he saith I consent. If you will not hold to this you must say that the Sichemites were to be of the same Communitie with Israel, and not of the same Republick, which signifieth either ungoverned Communities or various Republicks confede­rating.

SECT. VII.

R. B. IN Hesters time many of the people be­came Jews, Hest. 8.17. who yet were not under their government. And to be Jews is to be of the Jewish profession. And it is well known that this was to be circumcised, they and their little ones (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep the Law of Moses.

‘Mr. T's Answer. — They were incorpo­rated into the Jewish people, &c.’

Reply. This needeth no reply but what is given to the former.

SECT. VIII.

R. B. THE scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Go­vernment of Abrahams successors, and yet were to Circumcise their children as Church-members.

‘Mr. T's Answer is the same, and the Reply the same.’

SECT. IX.

R. B. WHen Jonas preached to Ninive, it was all the race of man among them, without exception, from the greatest to the least, that was to fast and join in the humiliation: [Page 25] Ergo, all, even Infants as well as others, were to partake of the remission. If you say, the beasts were to fast too: I answer, as they were capable in their kind of part of the curse, so were they of part of the benefit, but their capacity was not as mans: They fasted to manifest mans humilia­tion. And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kind, no wonder if Infants sped the better in theirs, and according to their capacities, and that was to have a remissi­on suitable to their sin.

‘Mr. T's Answer. Neither aged nor infants were visible Church-members, &c.’

Reply. This only proveth by parity of Reason, their capacity of it, and that they would have been such, if they had truely turned to God: which yet I cannot say that many of them did not according to the terms of the Common Co­venant of Grace made with Adam and Noe, though they came not under the Covenant of pe­culiarity: And if so (as Repentance is to be inter­preted in the best sense till the contrary be pro­ved) I leave it to the Reader, whether Gods laying on the Infants their share (as capable) in the humiliation, imply not such a share as they are capable of in the benefit? And the case of the Israelites Infants sheweth what they were capable of. Mr. T's denial is no disproof.

SECT. X.

R. B. WHat I have said of Sem and many others, and their posterity already, I shall not here again repeat: and more will be said anon to the following questions.

‘Mr. T's Answer is none, and needs no Re­ply.’

SECT. XI.

R. B. THE second proposition to be proved is, [...] Israelites children were [...] of [...]he u [...]versal visible Church of Christ as well [...]s [...] the Congregation of Israel] But this you did heretofore acknowledge, and therefore I suppose will not now deny. I suppose it past con­troversie between us; 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth. As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced, and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ, Heb. 11.26. and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ, and searched diligently, and prophesied of the grace to come; and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time, and testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol­low, 1 Pet. 1.10, 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ, and members of the body of Christ, and given for the edification of that body: Though it was revealed to them that the higher [Page 27] priviledges of the Church after the coming of Christ, were not for them but for us, 1 Pet. 1.12.2. I suppose it agreed on also between us, that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worship­ping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall, but the Church of Christ, and there­fore either Infants were members of Christs Church, or of no Church of Gods institution. Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two, but one Church. For Moses was Christs Ʋsher, and his ceremo­nies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ: And though the foolish Jews by mis-understand­ing them made a separation, and made Moses Di­sciples to be separate from Christs Disciples, and so set up the alone [shadows of things to come, yet the body is all of Christ] Col. 2.17. and by so doing they violated Gods institution, and un­churcht themselves. 3. I suppose it agreed also, that Christs Church is but one, and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible, yet make up one body. 4. And that therefore who­ever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal. (Though the Church was more eminently called Catholick, when the wall of separation was taken down.) But I remem­ber I have proved this in my Book, part. 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now.

‘Mr. T's Answer. The two first are granted. To the third, Though whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the uni­versal; yet it follows not, (which Mr. B. drives at, and vainly talks of his proving) that every [Page 28] one who was a member of the universal Church, in that he was a member of the Jewish Church. particular, was a visible member of every parti­cular visible Church of Christ. 2. Nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church, in that he was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ, was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church, &c.’

Reply. 1. None of this ever came into my thoughts which he untruly saith I drive at, &c. What sober man could imagine either of these assertions? What pittiful abuse of ignorant Rea­ders is this? 2. And what a poor put off to the point in hand? That which I said is but that all particular visible Churches and members, make up one visible universal Church, and therefore every visible member of any particular Church is a member of the universal? He durst not deny this, and yet a slander serveth his turn.

SECT. XII.

R. B. COncerning the matter of the third que­stion. I assert that [it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants wer [...] members, but of the Church distinct from it. This is proved sufficiently in what is said before.

‘Mr. T's Answer. As yet I find it not prove that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Common-wealth, or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of th [...] Common-wealth.’

[Page 29] Reply. 1. It is only a formal and not a materi­al distinction that I medled with: The formal reason of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ, at least after the choice of Kings, when the Republick was constituted by a humane head: Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuspie's Aarons Rod; If the Jews Common-wealth be specified as a Theocracy from God the Soveraign, the Sichemites were of it, and other nations might. 2. But many say that some were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church, though not contrarily: And be they distinct or not, it suffi­ceth me that Infants were of the Church.

SECT. XIII, XIV, XV, XVI.

R. B. MOreover, 1. Infants were Church-members in Abrahams family before Circumcision, and after when it was no Common-wealth. So they were in Isaacs, Jacobs, &c.

2. The banished, captivated, scattered Jews, that ceased to be members of their Common-wealth, yet ceased not to be of their Church.

3. The people of the Land, that became Jews in Hesters time, joyned not themselves to their Common-wealth: Nor the Sichemites.

4. Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Common-wealth.

‘Mr. T. affirmeth them all to have been Com­mon-wealths.’

Answer. The word being ambiguous may in a large sense be extended to a family, and to a [Page 30] scattered people that have no Soveraign; but is not so usually taken.

SECT. XVII.

R. B. THE Children of Abraham by Ketu­rah, when they were removed from his family were not unchurched; and yet were no mem­bers of the Jews Common-wealth. But I shall take up with what is said for this already, underta­king more largely to manifest it, when I perceive it necessary and useful.

‘Mr. T's Answer. Abrahams children by Ke­turah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched; at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews.’

Reply. 1. What a wide gap doth that [ at least] make you, yet to say, They were a Church or no Church, as you please? 2. Reader, use Scripture but impartially, and in the fear of God, and I will leave it to thy Conscience to judge whether it be credible, that when God had fore­told that Abraham would command his children and houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18.19. and when Ishmael, Keturahs children, and Esau, were circumcised by Gods command, and God had yet promised the Poli­tical peculiarities specially to Isaac, and Jacob, yet God would have all the grandchildren of Ishmael, Keturah, Esau to be uncircumcised: and all their posterity to cease that usage, as soon as they were out of Abrahams house: when yet [Page 31] History assureth us that they long continued it: Or whether God would have them circumcised and yet be no Church-members? Believe as evi­dence constraineth thee.

SECT. XVIII.

R. B. TO the fourth question I assert that [ 1. There was a Law or Precept of God ob­liging the Parents to enter their children into Cove­nant with God, by accepting his favour, and re-inga­ging and devoting them to God, and so entring them solemnly Church-members.] And [ 2. there was a Covenant, promise or grant of God, by which he offered the Church-membership of some Infants and actually conferred it, where his offer was ac­cepted.] I should have mentioned this first, and therefore will begin with the proof of this. By these terms Covenant, promise, grant, or deed of gift, &c. we understand that which is common to all these, viz. [A sign of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit] such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal. I call it [a sign of Gods will de jure] because [...]hat is the general nature of all his legal moral acts: they are all signal determinations de debito, [...]f some due. 2. I say conferring or confirming [...]ight to some benefit] to difference it from pre­ [...]epts which only determine what shall be due from us to God, and from threatnings, which deter­mine what punishment shall be due from God to us.

[Page 32] ‘Mr. T. — If we prove by another grant or deed of gift Physical or Moral which is not a promise, or by any Law which is not such a precept, he contradicts not my speech, &c.’

Reply. Your words are [I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining that it should be so (that Infants should be members of the Jewish Church) but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing, and I think it were a foolish undertaking to prove the repeal of a fact.] Peruse his words Reader.

SECT. XIX, XX, XXI.

R. B. HAving thus explained the terms, I prove the proposition. If Infants Church-membership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred, which some had right to or in, then was there some grant, covenant, or promise, by which this right was conferred: But the antecedent is most certain: Ergo, so is the consequent. I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God, to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people, to be brought so near him, and to be separated from the common and unclean, from the world, and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises, that live as without God in the world, and without hope.

If it were asked what benefit had the Circum­cision? I suppose you would say, much every way.

[Page 33] If Infant Church-membership were no benefit, then they that had it, were not (when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time) obli­ged to any thankfulness for it. But they were obliged to be thankful for it. Ergo, it was a be­nefit.

‘Mr. T. Denyeth not the benefit; but denyeth [that this is to be Visible members formally or connexively, for they may have all this be­nefit who are not visible Church-members: viz. some believing Saints that are dumb.’

Reply. Mark Reader, what an issue our Con­troversies with these men come to? [Men may be the covenanted people of God, and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people, and be separated from the com­mon and unclean, from the world, from strangers to the Covenant, &c. and yet be no visible Church-members] with them! Doth a dumb man signifie his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not? If he do, that is visible covenanting. If not, how is he one of these covenanting and se­parated people? And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenant­ing and separation, and not only of a secret un­expressed heart-consent: What will make a Church-member then with such men?

‘He next saith that [To be the circumcision is not all one as to be visible Church-members; Cornelius and his house were visible Church-members, yet not the circumcision].’

Reply. Reader, dost thou not marvail to find him so plead for me against himself, or speak no­thing [Page 34] to the case? To be circumcised then, or baptized now, is not all one as to be visible Church-members: But sure all the Circumcised were, and all the Baptized are, invested in visi­ble membership? Is it not so? And if Cornelius and more of the uncircumcised also were mem­bers, you see it was not inseparable from Cir­cumcision. And whom is this against, me or him?

‘He addeth [nor were the benefits, Rom. 3.1, 2. (the oracles of God, &c.) conferred to them as visible Church-members: For then all visible Church-members had been partakers of them].’

Reply. But it was to them as members of the Jewish visible Church: And if you plead for the extent of the Church to others also, I thank you for it.

When I say [ Infant Church-membership was a benefit] ‘He saith [Visible Church-member­ship simply notes only a state, by which was a benefit.]’

Reply. Only, is an exclusive term: Reader, by this thou maist perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact, without a Law or promise. It is no benefit with these men, but a state by which was a benefit. Either they or I then know not at all what Church-member­ship is: And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world, about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is, and about a term which we agree not of the sense of? I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his [Page 35] Church as visible? To be a Member is to be a Part: It is therefore as the member of a Family, School, Kingdom, a related part! And is it no benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his bo­dy? to be relatively a member of the Houshold of God? Sure were it but for the exclusion of the miserie of the contrary state, and for the Honour of it, such a Relation to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the Church, is some little benefit: (and great to me.)

And whether he and Major Danvers and such others should make such a vehement stir about it as they do, if it be no benefit, let it be consi­dered.

SECT. XXII.

R. B. THE next thing in the antecedent to be proved is, that there was a right conferred to this benefit, and some had a right in it. And 1. If any had the benefit, then had they right to or in that benefit: But some had the be­nefit, Ergo. The consequence of the major is cer­tain. 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits. 2. If any had the benefit of Church-membership, Cove­nant-interest, &c. without right; then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it. Not with it: For he is just, and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in: Not without it: For no man can [Page 36] have a benefit from God against his will, or with­out it. 2. If no Infants had duly and rightful­ly received this benefit, God would have some­where reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits. But that he doth not as to this case, Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many Texts of Scripture, of which more afterward.

‘Mr. T. The Infants of the Jews were visi­sible Church-members, not by a Legal right to it, antecedent to their being such visible Church-members which they or any for them might claim as due: Nor was it capable of being du­ly and rightfully received or usurped: For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people, who were in appearance from things sensible, Gods people; and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly, viz. his forming them and bringing them into the world, and placing them, —’

Reply. More mystery still! 1. Was there no an­tecedent Law or Covenant of God, giving a jus societatis a Right of membership to Abrahams seed as soon as they had a being initially, and commanding them to be devoted to God in Co­venant, and Circumcised, that they by investiture might have a plenary Right? Was there no such thing? O but [ this gave them not a right to it before they had it.] Is the poor Church to be thus abused, and holy things thus played with? They could not be members before they had a being; nor could lay claim to it: But could not [Page 37] Gods Law, Grant or Instrumental Covenant be made before they were born? And could it not be the Instrument of conveying right to them as soon as they were born? that is, as soon as they were subjects capable? And is not the cause in order of nature, though not of time before the effect? Cannot the Law of the Land be the fun­damental cause of the Right of Infants to Ho­nours and Estates, though till they are in being they are not capable subjects? Is not the Action ut agentis naturally antecedent to it as in patiente? Is it only Gods transeunt fact of making them men and these men, and placing them in England, which maketh Infants to be members of the En­glish Nobility, or Gentry or Citizens or mem­bers of this Kingdom? No; but it is the Laws that do morally give the Jus dignitatis, vel so­cietatis, though their action be not terminated in any subject till it exist. For every man born in England is not born a Lord, or Esquire, or Ci­tizen, no nor a free subject, unless the Law say it shall be so. If Foreigners or Rebels should have children here, and the Law were that they shall be Aliens, they would be no members of the Kingdom. If Mr. T. or Mr. D's children have nothing but Generation, and being born in Eng­land to shew for their Inheritance, their Title will not hold.

2. And might not right have been falsly plead­ded or usurped by a counterfeit Jew? Or the children of such? Or the children of Apostates? who yet were born of Abrahams seed, and in that Land? Whatsoever they were that Nehemiah used [Page 38] severely, I am sure Achans children, and the In­fants of the Cities that were to be consumed for Idolatry, lost their right to life and Church-mem­bership at once by their Parents sin: And God might if he had pleased, have continued the Life of Apostates children, without continuing their Church-right; Or Apostates might (and no doubt multitudes did) escape the justice of the Law through the fault of Magistrates or people, and yet have no true Legal Right to Church-member­ship for themselves or Infants (born after): For he that hath lost his right to life, hath lost his right (or may do) to the priviledges and benefits of it.

‘He addeth [yet I grant, they had a right in it, that is, that they had it by Gods dona­tion.]’

Reply. And was it not a Moral Donation then, if it gave Right? You will be forced thus to con­fute your self.

‘Mr. T. It seems to me not true, that the na­ture of the benefit of Infants visible member­ship consisteth in a right to further benefits.’

Reply. Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so. If we are at this pass about Re­lations and Right in general, no marvail if In­fant Baptism go for Antichristian: Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen, or of the mem­ber of any priviledged society, consist in his state of Right to the Benefits, Priviledges and Com­munion of the Society, and an obligation to the duties of a member, to the end he may have the benefits, and the Society the benefit of his mem­bership [Page 39] and duty? A conjunction of Right ( [...]) and obligation constituteth all such Re­lations. But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here?

‘Next Mr. T. denieth the consequence, [For a man may have a benefit without right.]’

Reply. 1. And yet just now, Church-member­ship in Israel was a thing that none could usurp, or have without right? 2. But I said [ no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it:] And therefore if God give such a thing as Church-membership which consisteth in a Right to further benefits, he that hath it by Gods gift hath it rightfully: Natural effects (as a prey to a thief) may be said to be given of God im­properly, by Physical disposal, to him that hath no right: But right it self cannot be given to him that hath no right; nor any thing else, Relative or Natural, by Gods Moral or Covenant dona­tion.

‘He [conceiveth it to be very erroneous that visible Church-membership is given out of di­stributive Justice; for as Regeneration, so also visible membership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord, not of distributive Justice by God as Judge. 2. That all that any man hath of God he hath of debt, contrary to Rom. 4.4. 3. That visible Church-membership is concei­ved as a thing offered, and to be duly and right­fully received’

Reply. If Mr. T. and I shall tire the Printer, and wast Paper, and trouble the world, with tel­ling them how many errors each of us hold, it will [Page 40] be an unsavory task, and I doubt it would be a much shorter work for one of us, (which ever it is) to enumerate the useful truths we hold. What I hold, be it right or wrong, I will tell the Reader as to this matter. I hold that Gods Kingdom is to be considered in its Constitution and Administration: The first hath, 1. The effi­cient, 2. The Constitutive, 3. The final Causes: And in the large sense it containeth, 1. Subjects on­ly by obligation, (such as Rebels are) 2. Sub­jects by consent, (or voluntary). The Efficient cause of the former is only Gods 1. Making them men, and Redeemed men quoad precium, and commanding their subjection or consent. To the effecting of the second is besides these required their Actual Consent (Parents consenting for their Infants), without which they are but Rebels, and have no right to the benefits of the Society.

God being a King de jure before his Govern­ment is Consented to, maketh a Law to man to command them to consent and be his voluntary sub­jects: To those that consent (as the condition) he promiseth the interest and blessings of his Co­venant, viz. Christ and Life; and threatneth the privation of those benefits, and sorer punishment to refusing rebels: He is Lawgiver and will be Judge of Non-consenters; called, Ʋnbelievers and refusers of Christ and Salvation: When men do consent they are under his further Administring Laws. The said efficient causes are Gods Acti­ons, 1. As Omnipotent Owner, 2. As Bene­factor, 3. As Sapiential Rector. 1. According to the first, he giveth us our Being and preser­veth [Page 41] it, and in him we Live, and Move, and Are. 2. As our Benefactor antecedent to his Admi­nistration, he gave the world a Redeemer abso­lutely, and reprieved the world and us, and gi­veth us all common Antecedent Mercies. 3. As the Rector de jure of men not yet consenting, he ma­keth the Law of Grace absolutely and antecedent­ly to any condition (of making it) on our part. This Law hath the preceptive part, commanding consent (faith and repentance). 2. The Donative or promissory part, giving us Christ in Relation, and right to his present benefits, if we consent; which is the condition. 3. And the penalty aforesaid.

The Administration of the Kingdom de jure, is the efficient of the consenting Kingdom: The Admi­nistration (or Actual Government) of the Con­senting Kingdom, is by Legislation, Judgement and Execution. And the Legislation is, 1. For the constitution of the particular members that shall from time to time be added: 2. And the Governing of them all.

Now if God have made a Law that men shall be received members of Christ and his Church if they consent (or Repent and Believe) and former­ly to the Israelites, if they be Consenters (or their seed, who consent by them) then it is an act of distributive justice of God as Judge, to give these benefits to Consenters: And to contra­distinguish an act of bounty unless he say [ meer bounty] is intolerable. For God governeth us Paternally, as a Regent-benefactor: He never gave reward to a Creature, Man or Angel, which was not a Gift as to the value of the thing, and a Re­ward [Page 42] only as to the ordo conferendi & ratio re­cipiendi: It is madness to think that we can me­rit from God commutatively. And it's little better to think that bounty and distributive justice may not consist; yea that there can be any right quoad ordinem distribuendi from that justice, which is not quoad rem donatam from bounty. It is sad therefore that the world must see, that looking all how to make good an espoused cause, should tempt so Ancient and Learned a Divine to subvert the Gospel and all Christianity: For what doth he less? If he talk only of members by obligation, every living man is a member: This he meaneth not. If he talk only of Consenting voluntary Members, to say that God command­eth none to be such, is to say that he command­eth none to be Christians, to Repent, Believe or Consent: To say that he hath made no promise or Donative Act in the Law of Grace, that if you consent (repent and believe) you shall have uni­on with Christ and his Church (or be members) is to deny the very summ of all the Gospel, and Baptism it self. To say that God doth not as Judge execute his own Law and promise, gi­ving this union to Consenters, and denying it to Refusers, is to say that he will not as a Judge ab­solve Believers or condemn Ʋnbelievers. O Rea­der, hate faction and partial disputes that can make men overthrow all Christianity, not know­ing what they do.

2. And his denying that visible Church-mem­bership is a thing offered, and rightly to be ac­cepted, is the same, even to deny that Christ in­viteth [Page 43] any Infidel to become a Christian, or ever called or commanded Heathens to believe: or sent his Ministers to compel them to come in, that his house may be filled.

But his slander that I say all that man hath from God is of debt, is forged groundlesly. I say God giveth some benefits antec [...]dently and abso­lutely, and some consequently on condition, by a Law: And none of them all are of debt as a workman deserveth his wages with commutative justice.

It is his gross error that visible Church-mem­bership of Infants among the Jews was not a thing offered on condition of Parents faith, and to be accepted or refused; but a state resulting from Gods fact. He feigneth a Church to be formal­ly quid Physicum sure! He that would not con­sent to the Covenant was by Asa to be put to death: And was not Circumcision a covenanting act? And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God? or would God else have taken them for his people? And would not renouncing God have cut them off? And would their seed then have had any right for being theirs? Indeed it is disputable how far some Ancestors, or other Proprietors might be a medium of right to such Apostates seed: but as theirs, there is no dispute.

SECT. XXIII.

R. B. I Am next to prove the consequence, that [this right was conferred by some grant, promise, or Covenant of God.] And this is as easie as to prove that the world was made by Gods power and efficiency or will; or to prove that God is the owner of all things, and no man can receive them but by his gift. 1. If there be no other way possible for right to be conveyed from God to us, but only by his grant, promise, or Covenant, (which we call donation, and is a moral civil action,) then it is by this means that it is con­veyed. But there is no other possible way of such conveyance: Ergo, we have no right till God give us right. His will signified createth our right. No man can have right to that which is wholly and absolutely anothers, but by his consent or will. This will is no way known, but by some signs of it. These signs of such a will for conveyance of right to a benefit, are a civil moral action, called a donation or gift simply. If the sign be in wri­ting, we commonly call it a deed of gift. If it be by word of mouth, conferring a present right, we call it a verbal grant or gift. If it confer only a future right, we call it a promise, and sometimes a Covenant; and sometimes the word Covenant signifieth both, that act which gives a present right, and promiseth a continuance of it. Right being a moral or civil thing, can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action. A [Page 45] gift that was never given, is a contradiction. So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four.

‘Mr. T. Visible Church-membership is not a Right, but a state of Being; as to be strong, healthy, rich, &c. which are not given by a civil moral action, but by Providence of God acting Physically as the Soveraign disposer of all. — I deny therefore that there is such a promise —’

Reply. Reader, it is not long of me that this Learned Ancient Divine knoweth not what a Church-member is, or else what is the difference between Ethicks, or Politicks, and Physicks. But it is our shame that a Preacher in England should be sound so ignorant. God as the Fountain of nature, and Omnipotent Lord of all, is indeed the first Cause of Being and Motion as such: As a free Benefactor he is the first Cause of all our Good as such; And as a Sapiential Rector, and Benefactor conjunctly (that is, by Paternal go­vernment) he is the first cause of Right.

Being and Motion are the effects of Physical efficiency: Jus vel Debitum is the very formal effect or object of Moral Efficiency by a Rector, and the formal object of Ethicks. To be a Church-member, is to have a stated Relation, consist­ing in Right to the Benefits and obligation to the duty, as was said before. He denieth this to be any Right, and to have any such Civil-moral cause as Right hath, but to be quid Physicum as Health, strength, Riches, and an answerable Phy­sical cause. Let the shame of this ignorance re­form [Page 46] the common error of Schools that teach not their children betimes the principles of Ethicks, Politicks, or Governing Order: It is a shame that at 16. years old any should be so ignorant as these words import. I must speak it, or I com­ply with the powers of darkness, that so shame­fully oppose the truth.

SECT. XXIV.XXV.

R. B. 2. GOD hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right: which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it.

The second Proposition to be proved, is, that [there was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant and Church-membership, by accepting of his offer, and re-engaging them to God.] And this is as obvi­ous and easie as the former. But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms. The word [Law] is sometimes taken more largely, and un­fitly, as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God, considered without any sign to represent it to the creature. So many call Gods na­ture or purposes the Eternal Law: which indeed is no law, nor can be fitly so called. 2. It is ta­ken properly for [an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando.] And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law. Some define it, [Jussum majestatis obligans aut ad obedientiam aut ad poenam.] But this leaves [Page 47] out the premiant part, and some others: So that of Grotius doth, Est regula actionum moralium ob­ligans ad id quod rectum est. I acquiesce in the first, or rather in this, which is more full and ex­act; [A law is a sign of the Rectors will consti­tuting or confirming right or dueness.] That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituen­do vel confirmando, is the general nature of all laws. Some quarrel at the word [sign] because it is logical and not political: As if Politicians should not speak logically as well as other men! There is a twofold due: 1. What is due from us to God (or any Rector;) and this is signified in the precept and prohibition, (or in the precept de agendo & non agendo.) 2. What shall be due to us; and this is signified by promises, or the pre­miant part of the law, and by laws for distribu­tion and determination of proprieties. All bene­fits are given us by God in a double relation, both as Rector and Benefactor: or as Benefactor Re­gens; or as Rector benefaciens: though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God, they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent inte­rest therein. The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right: afterward there may be renew­ed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the for­mer, or to do the same thing: and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former, or to revive the memory of them, or to excite to the obedience of them: And these do not properly constitute duty, because it was constitu­ted before; but the nature and power of the act [Page 48] is the same with that which doth constitute it, and therefore doth confirm the constitution, and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before. For obligations to one and the same duty may be mul­tiplied. 3. Some take the word [law] in so re­strained a sence as to exclude verbal or particu­lar precepts, especially directed but to one; or a few men; and will only call that a law which is written, or at least a well known custom obliging a whole society in a stated way. These be the most eminent sort of laws: but to say that the rest are no laws, is vain and groundless, against the true general definition of a Law, and justly reject­ed by the wisest Politicians. That which we are now to enquire after, is a precept, or the command­ing part of a law, which is [a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty,] of which signs there are ma­terially several sorts, as 1. by a voice, that's evi­dently of God: 2. by writing: 3. by visible works or effects: 4. by secret impresses, as by inspirati­on, which is a law only to him that hath them.

‘Mr. T. I assert, 1. There is no such offer, promise or Covenant: 2. That though there are precepts for Parents to pray for their Children, to breed them up yet they are not bound to believe this, that upon their own faith God will take their Infant Children to be his, and will be a God to them, nor to accept of this pretended offer. 3. That though Parents may enter into Covenant for their Children — as Deut. 29.12. they do not by this make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God will be their God.’

[Page 49]Reply. What a deal of the Gospel and the Churches mercys do these men deny? 1. The very nature of our own Holy Covenant is, that in it we give up to God our selves and all that is ours accord­ing to the capacity of that all. And as our Riches are devoted hereby as capable utensils; so our In­fants as capable of Infant Relation, Obligation and Right. What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is His? If you except Li­berty, Health, Life, you are hypocrites: And can you except Children? It's true; this is but so far as they are our own, and we say no more: when they have a will to choose for themselves, they must do it. 2. I have fully proved Scripture com­mands for Parents to offer their Children to God, and that signifieth his will to accept what he com­mandeth them to offer. And his promises to shew mercy to them as theirs are plain and many, which I must not tire the Reader with repeating.

Mr. T. addeth, That if there were such a pro­mise and duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging, yet this neither did then nor doth now make Infants visible Church-members.

Reply. Reader, are not the Anabaptists ductile men where they like, as well as intractable where they dislike, that they will follow such a Leader as this? Promise and Duty of accepting and re-en­gaging aggravateth the sin of Rebels that reject it; but if these performed, even visible mutual co­venanting, make not Church-members visible, what doth? You see what he hath brought the ancient and later Church-membership, Circumcision and Baptism to? I think to nothing: As formal Pon­tifician [Page 50] Church-tyrants when they have mortified some ordinance, and turned it into an Image, make an engine of it to trouble the Church, and silence the Preachers and serious practisers of the Gospel with. These men make nothing of Church-membership, and then restlesly trouble the Church-about it.

SECT. XXVI.

R. B. HAving thus opened the terms [Law and Precept,] I prove the Propositi­on thus. 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their Children, to engage and devote them to him in Covenant, then there was a Law or Precept which made this their duty, and obliged them to it. But it was a duty: Ergo, there was such a Law or Precept. For the antecedent, 1. If it were not a duty, then it was either a sin, or a neutral indifferent action: But it was not a sin, (for, 1. It was against no Law, 2. It is not reprehended;) nor was it indifferent, for it was of a moral nature, and ergo, either good or evil, yea sin or duty: For properly permittere is no act of Law, (though many say it is,) but a suspension of an act: and so licitum is not mo­raliter bonum, but only non malum; and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality. 2. If there be a penalty (and a most terrible penalty) annexed for the non-performance, then it was a duty: But such a penalty was annexed (as shall anon be particularly shewed) even to be cut off from [Page 51] his people, to be put to death, &c. If it oblige ad poenam, it did first oblige ad obedientiam: For no Law obligeth ad poenam, but for disobedience, which presupposeth an obligation to obedience. 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their Children into Gods Covenant and Church, then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do: But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it; Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major. There is no duty but what is made by some Law or Precept as its proper efficient cause or foundation: Ergo, if it be a duty, there was certainly some Law or Precept that made it such. Among men we say, that a benefit obligeth to gratitude, though there were no Law: But the meaning is, if there were no humane law, and that is because the Law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankful. If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it, there could be no duty. 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will, ergo, no duty but what is made such by a Law or Pre­cept. For a Precept is the sign of Gods will ob­liging to duty. 2. Where there is no Law there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15. ergo, where there is no law there is no duty; for these are contra­ries: it is a duty not to transgress the Law, and a transgression not to perform the duty which it re­quireth of us. There is no apparent ground of ex­ception, but in case of Covenants. Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his con­sent? I answer, 1. He may oblige himself to an [Page 52] act, which he must perform, or else prove unfaith­ful and dishonest: but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty: ergo, when God makes a Co­venant with man, he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity, but not of duty. 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise, doth occasion an ob­ligation to duty from God, because God hath obli­ged men to keep their promises. 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own Ruler, so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty, (that is duty to himself, though the act be for the benefit of ano­ther;) but then he may as fitly be said to make a Law to himself, or command himself: so that still the duty (such as it is) hath an answerable com­mand. So that I may well conclude, that there is a law, because there is a duty. For nothing but a Law could cause that duty, nor make that omission of it a sin. Where there is no law, sin is not im­puted, Rom. 5.13. But the omission of entring Infants into Covenant with God before Christs in­carnation would have been a sin imputed; ergo, there was a law commanding it. 2. If it was a duty to dedicate Infants to God, or enter them in­to Covenant with him, then either by Gods will, or without it: certainly not without it. If by Gods will, then either by his will revealed, or unreveal­ed. His unrevealed will cannot oblige; for there wants promulgation, which is necessary to obliga­tion: And no man can be bound to know Gods un­revealed will, unless remotely, as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed. If it be Gods revealed will that must thus oblige, then there was some sign by which it was revealed. And [Page 53] if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty, then there was a law, for this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law, (which is the principal part,) so that you may as well say, that you are a reasonable creature, but not a man, as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will, but yet not by a Law or Pre­cept. 3. We shall anon produce the Law or Pre­cept, and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing. In the mean time I must confess, I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of its own evidence to shame the gain-sayer. And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly, by perswading them that there were duties without Precepts or Laws, and benefits without donations, covenants or promise confirming them, then despair of nothing for the time to come: You may perswade them that there is a Son without a Father, or any relation with­out its foundation, or effect without its cause, and never doubt but the same men will believe you, while you have the same interest in them, and use the same artifice in putting off your con­ceits.

Mr. T. would first perswade the Reader that I mean nothing but Circumcision, —

Reply. Long ago I told you that, 1. The Fe­males were not circumcised, 2. Nor the Males for forty years in the wilderness: And yet were all Church-members by being Gods Covenanted peo­ple. And so was Israel before Circumcision.

His terms of [the hissing of a Goose, and the snarling of a Cur] and other such, I account [Page 54] lighter than the least of his injuries to the truth.

SECT. XXVII.

R. B. THE fifth Question requireth me to lay down this assertion, that [there is no Law or Precept of God which doth not oblige to duty; and no actual promise or donation, which doth not confer the benefit.] This I aver on oc­casion of your last Letter, where in contradiction to the former, you confess [the promises to the na­tural posterity of Abraham, Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and Deut. 29. and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses, of calling the people, and requiring them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. Deut. 29.] Yet you [do not conceive that the Infants of Israel were made visible Church-mem­bers by the promises in the Covenants, or the pre­cepts forenamed.] If so, then either you ima­gine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Church-membership, or precept concerning their entrance into that state; or else you imagine that such promises were made, but did not actually confer the benefit, and such precepts were made, but did not actually oblige. Your words are so ambiguous in this, that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way. For when you say [there is no such particular promise concerning Infants visible [Page 55] Church-membership, or precept, &c. besides Circumcision, as in my Book of Baptism I assert,] who knows whether that exception of [Circum­cision] be a concession of such a precept or pro­mise in the case of Circumcision? or if not, what sense it hath? and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert? and before the sense of your one syllable [such] is discerned by trying it by a whole volume, I doubt you will make what you list of it. However if you should mean, that such precepts there are as have for their subject [the avouching God to be their God, the entring into Covenant Circumcision] of Infants, but not their Church-membership; then, 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before; 2. And more shall do anon; 3. And it's a palpable con­tradiction to the precedent affirmative. But if you mean that Church-membership of Infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts, and yet that In­fants were not made or confirmed thereby; it is the contrary that I am asserting, and I have no further need to prove, than by shewing the con­tradiction of your opinion to it self. For an actu­al Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised (according to its tenor and terms,) is like a cause that hath no effect, a Father that did never generate, and it is all one as to say, a gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant, seeing the name is denied, when the thing named and defined is granted. So a Precept or Law to enter Infants solemnly into Church-membership, which yet obligeth none so to [Page 56] enter them, is as gross a contradiction as to say, the Sun hath not heat or light, and yet is truly a Sun.

Mr. T. here confesseth, 2. That the Jews were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God, but by their promise to God: Gods call of them made them his Church, and their promise to God with other acts made them visibly so —

Reply. Reader, is not all here unsaid again by this concession? Unless he will say that this Call, and Covenant, and Promise made them all a visible Church, and yet none of these, but their birth and place made them members? As if any thing made the Whole Church which made none of the Parts as such.

SECT. XXVIII.

R. B. I Come next to the sixth Question, Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact, which without the causation of any promise or precept, did make the Israelites Infants Church-members▪ This you affirm (if you would be understood;) whether this your ground of Infants Church-mem­bership or mine be righter, I hope will be no hard matter for another man (of common capacity) to discern. By a [transeunt fact] thus set as con­tradistinct to a law, precept or promise, either you mean the act of legislation and promise making, or some other meerly physical act. If the former, it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business: For you should not put things in competition ex­cluding the one, where they both must necessarily [Page 57] concur, the one standing in a subordination to the other. Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way than by a transeunt fact? Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will. And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact. If it be by voice, is not that transeunt? If by writing, is not the act transeunt? If by creation it self, the act is tran­seunt though the effect be permanent. And cer­tainly if legislation or promising be your transe­unt fact, you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law (or promise) it being the making of such a law. And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject, but by the law so made: nor doth the making of a promise, grant or covenant, confer right to the benefit which is the subject of it, any otherwise than as it is the making of that grant which shall so confer it. As the making of a knife doth not cut, but the knife made: and so of other instruments. So that if the law oblige not, or the grant confer not, certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it. I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense, without charging you with too great absurdity. As if you should say, It is not the will of the testator, i. e. his te­stament, that entitleth the legatary to the legacy, but it is the transeunt fact of the testator in ma­king that will: or it is not the Soveraigns commis­sion that authorizeth a Judge, souldier, &c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission. It is not the sign that signifieth, but the transeunt fact of making that sign. Were not this a contemptible arguing? To charge you with [Page 58] this, were to make you tantum non unreasonable. And yet I know not what to say to you, that is, how to understand you. For if you mean a meer physical transeunt fact, which is no such legislati­on or promise-making, then it is far more absurd than the former. For if it be not a sign of Gods will obliging to duty, or conferring benefit, then can it not so oblige to duty, nor confer benefits. It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty, nor any other tran­seunt fact but promise, or other donation, that can convey right to a benefit, or oblige the promi­ser. A moral or civil effect must be produced by a moral or civil action, and not by a meer phy­sical action; which is unfit to produce such an ali­en effect, and can go no higher than its own kind. What sense therefore I should put on your words, without making them appear unreasonable, even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse, I cannot tell. For to say, it is not a law but legislation, is all one as to say, it is not the fundamentum, but the laying of that founda­tion that causeth the relation, or from which it doth result. And to say it is an alien physical act, which hath no such thing as right for its subject or terminus, is to confound physicks and morals, and to speak the grossest absurdities; as to say that the transeunt fact of eating, drinking, going, building, &c. do adopt such an one to be your heir. I must needs think therefore, till you have better cleared your self, that you have here quit your self as ill, and forsaken and deliver­ed up your Cause, as palpably as ever I knew man [Page 59] do, without an express confession that it is naught. When men must be taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that Infants Church-membership needed no revocation, forsooth [because their Church-membership was not caused by a law, precept, pro­mise or covenant, but by a transeunt fact] than which as you leave it, the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream. But I pray you remem­ber in your reply that you being the affirmer of this, must prove it. Which I shall expect, when you can prove that you can generate a man by spit­ing or blowing your nose, or by plowing and sow­ing can produce Kings and Emperors.

Mr. T. Here Mr. T. is at the old transeunt fact again: Let the Reader make his best of it: I ac­count it not worth the reciting; nor his title of Canine Scoptical Rhetorick regardable.

SECT. XXIX, to XXXIX.

R. B. IN consideration of the seventh Question, I shall consider the nature and effect of the transeunt fact which you here describe. And first of the reason of that name. You say that you call it [transeunt] [because done in time and so not eternal, and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law, ordinance, statute, de­cree which determines such a thing shall be for the future.] And do you think this the common sense of the word? or a fit reason of your appli­cation of it to the thing in hand?

[Page 60]I think your intellection and volition are imma­nent acts, and yet not eternal.

We use to contradistinguish transeunt acts from immanent, and that because they do transire in sub­jectum extraneum.

But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent.

But use your sense as long as we understand it.

If it be only [past] actions which you call [transeunt] it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing, was no transe­unt fact till the end of all those years; and so did not (by your own doctrine) make any Church-members till the end of those years.

But, Sir, the Question is not, whether it were a transeunt fact that laid the foundation by legislati­on or promise-making; but whether the effect were transeunt, or the act as it is in patiente: Whether the law were transeunt which was made by a transeunt fact? and whether the moral action of that law were permanent or transeunt? it being most certainly such a moral act that must produce a title, or consti­tute a duty. Gods writing the ten Commande­ments in stone was a fact soon past, but the law was not soon past, nor the moral act of that law, viz. obligation. There are verbal laws, that have no real permanent sign: and yet the law may be permanent, and the obligation permanent, because the sign may have a permanency in esse cognito, and so the signifying vertue may remain by the help of memory, though the word did vanish in the speaking.

[Page 61]When you come to point out this transeunt fact individually, you say [it is Gods taking the whole people of the Jews for his people,] which you term [fact] as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it.] 1. I did not well understand before that [a fact] did so vastly differ from an [Act,] as to contain the acts (rather than the facts) of many generations.

This is a long fact according to your measure, even from Abrahams call out of Ur: but how long it seems you are not well agreed with your self. For in the first part of your Letter you enumerate to the other acts that compose this fact [the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, giving them laws, setling their Priesthood, Tabernacle, Army, Government, Inhe­ritance:] But before you end, you change your mind, and say [the Church-membership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call, and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4.] But sure that was long before the setling their inheritance. Your fact according to your last account was about 437. years in doing; but according to your first opini­on, it was about 470. years long.

If it were one individual fact of about 470. years long that made Infants Church-members, then they could not be Church-members till that fact was past, For the effect is not before the cause, or causality of the efficient; the relation cannot be before the fundamentum be laid: and it seems this long fact was the laying of the fundamentum: [Page 62] But the consequent is certainly false; for Infants were Church-members before the end or compleating of your long fact: For they were Church-members (you'l grant) when Ishmael and Isaac were cir­cumcised. Ergo, it was not this long fact that made them Church-members.

If you mean that it was not the whole, but some part of this long fact that actually made Infants Church-members, then you would have assigned that part, when that was the thing desired, and which you pretended exactly to perform; or at least you would not have told us it comprehended all these acts.

And if each particular act did make Infants Church-members, or lay a sufficient ground of it, then it seems that it was done before the institution of Circumcision. For Gods calling Abraham out of Ur was before it. So that the Children born in his house must be Church-members upon that; and a sufficient ground laid for his own to have been such, if he had then had a natural issue: And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Church-mem­ber many years before Circumcision.

If this be your meaning, I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of Infants Church-membership before Abrahams days, if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur.

If you should mean that some one of these com­prehended acts should of it self make any Infants Church-members, then it must be any one; for you no more assign it to one of them than to another, (only say [chiefly the bringing them from Ae­gypt:] [Page 63] But surely some of these acts particularly cannot do it, as the leading to Padan Aram, the re­moval to Canaan, to Aegypt, placing, preserving there, setling their Army, &c. Did any one of these make Infants to become Church-members?

Nay, suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members, (and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the in­stitution of Circumcision,) yet could not your Do­ctrine hold good: For some of these acts are of an alien nature, and no more apt to cause infant Church-membership, than a Bull to generate a Bird. What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of Infants Church-mem­bership? None, I think; at least if it be such an Army as ours: For surely the setling of ours cau­sed no such thing, as you well know. What apti­tude hath the leading to Padan Aram, or removal to Aegypt, to make Infants Church-members? Nay, how strange is it, that the removing of Church-members, and such as had been In­fant Church-members, as Ishmael, Keturahs chil­dren, Esau, must cause Infant Church-member­ship? Sure it was no cause of their own. Ketu­rahs children were Church-members in infancy: I enquire of you by what act they were made such? You say [by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people] whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part. Very good. It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews, is a taking of the removed to be of that people: or else it is not on­ly the taking that people, but also the removal [Page 64] from that people that maketh Church-members, even the removed as well as the taken, both which are alike absurd.

And I pray you tell me yet a little better, how an act can make a man a Church-member that was one long before that was done? You cannot here say, that it was before in esse morali, and had a mo­ral causation. How then could your chiefest act, the bringing out of Aegypt, make those Infants Church-members that were born in Aegypt, and were Church-members before? Or how could it be any part of the cause? Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Church-member when he was in the basket on the waters? And when you answer this, you may do well to go a little further, and tell me, how such an act con­curreth to make him an Infant Church-member that was dead an hundred or two hundred years before that act was done. For example, how did the setling of the Israelites Army, or Inheritance, or the Covenant on Mount Sinai, make Ishmael, or Esau, or Isaac, or Jacob Church-members?

I desire you also to tell me by the next, what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430. years at least together, so as to make them one fact? And whether I may not as ground­edly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years only? And whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact, and assign it to this office?

You say that you call this fact [transeunt] because it's [past,] (and so till it's [past] it [Page 65] seems Isaac and Jacob that were dead before, are no Chruch-members;] I would then fain know whether it be this same transeunt fact, or some other, that makes Infants Church-members five hundred years after it is past? If it be this same, then how comes a meer transeunt fact to work ef­fectually so many hundred years after it is past? unless it made a Law or Covenant which doth the deed? If it be a new transeunt fact that must make Infants Church-members after the compleat­ing of this (the setling their inheritances;) then I pray you let me know, whether it [...]e one fact ex­ercised on the whole nation in gross, or must it be a fact upon every Infant member individually? If on the nation, remember to tell us what it was; and do not only tell us the cause of the member­ship of former Infants. And seeing it must be such as the membership of every Infant till Christs time at least must be caused by, I pray you remem­ber to make your work square and full, and be sure to assign us no other kind of fact, than what you will prove to have been so frequently repeat­ed in every age, and so fully extensive to every Infant among the Jews, as that it have no gaps, but may make all members that were so in each age. And remember, that it is no law, precept, promise or covenant that you must assign for the cause; for that is it you are engaged against: but a constant suc­cession of transeunt facts extending to each indi­vidual member. O what work have you made your self? and what a sort of new political Do­ctrine shall we have from you, when these things are accomplished according to the frame you have [Page 66] begun? Such as I believe the Sun never saw, nor the wisest Lawyer in England ever read be­fore? Which makes me the less marvel that so ma­ny of your opinion are so much against the Lawyers; for I dare say they will be but few of them for you, if these be your grounds, or at least not for these your grounds.

Reply. To all this I find nothing said by Mr. T. that I think worthy the Readers trouble to reply to: Let him read it and see. His charge of [foolish exclamations, vanity, &c.] I pass by.

SECT. XXXIX, to XLIV.

R. B. BƲt all this yet is but a light velitation: The principal thing that I would en­quire into, is, what your great comprehensive fact is in the true nature of it, which you call [Gods taking the whole people of the Jews to be his peo­ple.] Doth the word [taking] signifie a meer physical taking or fact; or a moral, such as among men we call, a civil action? If it be a meer phy­sical taking, then, 1. It cannot produce a moral effect, such as that in question is. 2. And then it must have an answerable object, which must be individual existent persons. 3. And then you can­not call it one fact, but many thousand: even as many as there were persons taken in to the Jews in above four hundred years. 4. And then what was the physical act which is called Gods taking? was it such a taking as the Angel used to Lot, that carried him out of Sodom; or as the Apo­cryphal [Page 67] Author mentions of Habakkuk, that was taken by the hair of the head, and carried by the Angel into another Country, to bring Daniel a mess of Pottage? If God must by a physical appre­hension take hold of them that he makes Church-members, we shall be at a loss for our proof of their Church-membership. But I cannot imagine that this is your sense. But what is it then? Is it a physical action though a moral causation of some physical effect? That it cannot be: For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire af­ter. It necessarily remains therefore that this be a political moral taking that you here speak of. And if so, then the transeunt fact you speak of must needs be a civil or political action. And what that can be, which is no Law, Promise or Covenant in this case, I pray you bestow some more diligence to inform us, and not put us off with the raw name of a transeunt fact opposed to these. Certainly, if it be a civil or legal action, the product or effect of it is jus or debitum, some due or right: And that is either, 1. A dueness of somewhat from us, (which is either somewhat to be done, or somewhat to be given;) 2. Or a dueness of something to us, which is either of good or evil: If good, it is either by contract or dona­tion (whether by a Testament praemiant Law, or the like:) if evil, it is either by some poenal Law, or voluntary agreement: Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth? To be a member of the Church, is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God, and taken by him for his special people. The act [Page 68] which makes each member, is of the same nature with that which makes the society. The relation then essentially containeth, 1. A right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men, Christs headship, and that favour, protection, provision and other blessings, which are due from such a powerful and graciou Soveraign to such Subjects, and from such a Head to his Members: As al­so a right to my station in the Body, and to the inseparable benefits thereof. 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ, acknowledged and promised actually or virtually, really or repu­tatively. Now for the first, how can God be re­lated unto me as my God, or Christ as my Savi­viour, and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings, by any other way than his own free gift? This gift must be some sig­nification of his will: For his secret will is not a gift, but a purpose of giving. This way of gi­ving therefore is by a civil or moral action, which is a signifying of the Donors will; and can be by no way, but either pure donation, con­tract, testament, or law. In our case it must needs partake of the nature of all these. It is not from one in any equality, nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us. Be­ing therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Bene­factor, it must needs be by pure donation, or it cannot be ours. Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise, or by his word, and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance, and en­gagement to certain fidelity, gratitude and duty, [...]nd so is the stipulator, and we the promisers in [Page 69] the latter part of the action: it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant, though indeed the word [Covenant] frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone. As it proceedeth from the death of the testator (in natural moral-reputative be­ing,) so it is called a testament. And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor, giving this benefit to the governed, to promote the ends of govern­ment, and obliging to duty thereby, so it par­taketh of the nature of a law. The commonest Scripture name for this act, is Gods Covenant or Promise, and sometimes his gift; which all signi­fie the same thing here. It follows therefore, that either by Gods [taking Israel to be his peo­ple] you mean some civil political action, as a Covenant, Promise, or the like collation of the benefit, (and then you assert the thing which you deny,) or else you know not what you mean, nor can make another know it, without the dis­covery of the grossest absurdity. And as for the other thing which is contained in Church-mem­bership, the professed duty of man to God, it is most certain, 1. That Gods Law obligeth us to that duty: 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation, and so to re-engage themselves: 3. That this actual con­sent professed doth therefore double the obligation. And thus by a mutual contract, Covenant or con­sent (whereof our part is first required by a law,) is the relation of Church-membership con­tracted. Now to lay by and deny all this, and give us the general naked name of [taking for Gods people,] is meerly delusory, seeing that [Page 70] [taking] means this which you exclude, or it means nothing that is true and reasonable. And therefore tell us better what it means.

As for the Texts you cite, Deut. 4.34. & Levit. 20.24, 26. 1 King. 8.53. Isai. 43.1. In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people, or took them for his own, and founded the relation: but the natural actions whereby he rescued them from the Aegyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use, service, and honour out of that land. But I think sure they were his people, and all their Infants were Church-members before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking.

As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel. 1. By his Cove­nant and their entring Covenant with him. 2. By local separation of their bodies from others. It was the first that made them his people, and Church-members, and not the last: the last was only a favourable dealing with them as his be­loved. The same I say to the other two Texts. Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member. What if an Aegypti­an that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelies, and got with them through the Red Sea, do you think he had been therefore a Church-member? Suppose God had made no pro­mise or covenant with Abraham or his seed, but only taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan, and thence into Aegypt, and thence into the Wil­derness, and thence into Canaan again: Do you think this much had made them Church-mem­bers? [Page 71] Then if the Turks conquer Greece, or the Tartarians conquer China, they are become Church-members, because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least. And I think it is past doubt, that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom, and the Israelites in Aegypt be­fore they were brought out, as truly as after.

As to Gen. 12.1. Acts 7.2. Nehem. 9.7. which you also cite, as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began, so I shall further enquire anon, whether they contain any Covenant or promise.

So Exod. 19.4, 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Aegypt, did make Israel a Church, or the Infants or any others, members of it: But only that by fulfilling a former promise in the delive­rance of a people formerly his own, he layeth fur­ther obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies. The same I say of Levit. 11.45. Neh. 1.10. I will not believe yet, but that you believe your self, that the Israelites and their Infants were as truly Church-members before, as after their deliverance out of Aegypt. And me-thinks the Texts you cite might put it out of doubt. What if God say, Hos. 11.1. [When Israel was a child I loved him, and called my Son out of Aegypt.] Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Aegypt did make him his Son that was none before: or to prove that Israel was Gods Son before he called him out of Aegypt? If you should maintain the former, I might expect that [Page 72] you should say the like of Christ himself, to whom the Evangelist applieth this text; and so you may prove as fairly, that Christ was none of Gods Son till he was called out of Aegypt, but was made his Son by that call. Certainly the Text termeth him Gods Son that was called, as being so before that call. By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine, and try whether it be a transeunt fact, or a Law and Covenant, that made Infants and all others Church-members: and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours, and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it, and go so far on such a ground, yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable nonsense or absurdities, then let them still follow you in the dark; for I expect not that reason should recover them.

Reply. To all this I find nothing said that needeth any further reply.

SECT. XLIV, XLV.

R. B. I Come now to the eighth Question, 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 first make a duty; the other which suppose it so made, and [Page 73] do only call for obedience, and excite thereto, or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto. If I could shew you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty, or granting the pri­viledge of Church-membership, it were not 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 manifested 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 promise 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 Common-wealth 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 Common-wealth, and the quality of the mate­rials, &c. I think indeed, that as constitutive of the form of the Common-wealth, these are scarce properly 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 [Page 74] and obedience, and so are laws eminenter & vir­tualiter, 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 seldom written; and when they are, it is only 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 Church-members, 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 Church-membership by Laws and Co­venants concerning it, ever since the time that there was a written word of God: and that is sufficient, if we could fetch it no higher. Ha­ving premised this, I come nearer to the Que­stion.

The first institution of Infants Church-mem­bership 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 Common-wealth: Which Republick being sacred, and devoted to Gods worship and service, was truly a Church of which God was head. This [Page 75] 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 than 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 only 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 ob­liged, because he is under no Law, no more is he obliged to punish, but only 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, [Page 76] 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 affection 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 promise 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 necessarily 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 its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity. And if the immortality may be so proved from its nature, then also its 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. [Page 77] 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 it is 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 is most certain therefore, that according to the first law of nature, Infants should have been Church-members. 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 however it be of the title to glory or eternity, it is most certain, that accord­ing to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had stood. The first Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-membership, 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 fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.] Here you see by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency, and so Church-mem­bers. And note, 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.

Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-membership, it proves not their visible Church-membership.

[Page 78]Reply. Mark Reader, that Gods Law and bles­sing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image, would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members, though members? What not so notorious a Law, and Covenant, and Benediction? No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out, if Innocent Adams must have been shut out?

He adds, [2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance, yet not su [...]h 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 — they being to be actually visible Church-members be­fore admission according to Mr. B's dictates.]

Reply. Alas, poor Readers, that must be thus wearied! I know nothing that this Law or Cove­nant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes: I know no Right given but it is eventually given, nor received but it's eventually received. Admission is an ambiguous word: My dictates as he calls them, are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God, by consenting to his Co­venant for themselves and them: 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Ba­ptismal Covenanting Ordinance: 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them, and signifieth his consent to the mutual Co­venant: which is antecedently to their consent, but a conditional consent or Covenant, but conse­quently a [...]tual. 4. That accordingly natural in­terest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member, meerly because he is his: BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his [Page 79] Creation and Redemption, he is a Church-member initially upon heart-consent; and by Investiture upon Sacramental consent: which I think you mean by Admission.

3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove such a Law or Ordinance, yet it proves it not such a promise and precept as Mr. B. as­serteth.

Reply. Must such dealing as this go for an an­swer? What's the difference?

Mr. T. addeth, 4. If it did, yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature,—

Reply. You are hard put to it. I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Or­dinance, Law or Grant of Infant Church-member­ship was first made. And I leave it to any impar­tial Christian whether I prove it not certain, that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an [Increase and Multiply] signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him, if Adam had not sinned: and so have been mem­bers of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God. Alas, many go so much further, as to assert as truth, that had Adam stood (nay but in that one temptation; yea say some, had he but once loved God) all his posterity had not been only born Holy, but confirmed as the Angels: I cannot prove that: but I can prove that they had been born ho­ly had not Adam sinned, and so had been visible members. And if so that God did found In­fant membership in Nature, let awakened reason think, whether Parents yet have not as much in­terest in children, and children in Parents, and then whether God have ever reverst this natural [Page 80] order? Yea whether he hath not all along con­firmed it? It seemeth out of doubt to me.

I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt: but withal upon the promise of a Re­deemer, [an universal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place] Let them deny it that can, and dare. And it in­timateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct interest with their Parents.

He saith that [the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling, not birth.] I would desire him if he can, to tell me, whether both Cain and Abel were not visible Church-members in Adams family? And whether none but the Elect are vi­sible members? And whether God call not them that are visible members to that state?

He saith [If this Law be in force all are born without sin.]

Reply. The Covenant of Innocency is not in force; but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force; and that Infants visible Church-membership was founded in Nature and that Law at first: And therefore though our Innocency be lost, Parents are Parents still; And if God change not his order therein, are as capable of consent­ing to Grace for their Children, as they were of being innocent for them.

SECT. XLVI.

R. B. THe next Institution of Infants Church-membership, was at the first proclama­tion of grace to fallen 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 Church-mem­bers: 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 plai­ed 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 might ha [...]e done: But in grace or undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him, in which they that conquered 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, [Page 82] and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan, and who should make a perfect conquest over him. 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work 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. 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 Head first an Infant. Where note, 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church; and in things which he was capable of, 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 im­perans and pars subdita do constitute each Com­mon-wealth. So that if 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 [Page 83] string, 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.

Mr. T. The thing to be proved is a Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed,

Reply. The thing I am to do, is to shew you when and how God instituted Infants Church state; And that he never had a Church on earth that excluded them: And particularly to shew you that they are included in the first edition of the Covenant of Grace made to Adam, which is perfected in a second edition, but not repealed. This I think I have done.

Mr. T. addeth that It will not hold from Christs Head­ship in Infancy, &c. 1. It is not declared in Scripture, and so a meer phan [...]y: 2. Then an Infant in the womb should be a visible member, because then Christ was Head of the Church: 3. Then an old man should not be a mem­ber; for Christ was not an old man.

Reply. 1. Irenaeus thought it would hold who gi­veth this reason of it: And I leave the Reader to consider whether the words cited prove it not. Sure I am, it greatly satisfieth my judgement, that God hereby declared his will to include In­fants in his Church visibly. For the Head is a Member, even the noblest: Therefore one Infant is confessed by you to be a visible member of the Church: And if one, it will be incumbent on you [Page 84] to prove the rest uncapable or excluded. When I read that Christ came not into the world at the statute that Adam did, but chose to be an Infant, and to be persecuted in Infancy, and to have In­fants murdered for his sake first, and to invite and use them as he did, it is not the rowling over of your wearisom dry denials and confident absur­dities, that will perswade me that Christ shutteth out all Infants. And I am sure that the Instance confuteth your common exceptions against Infants; As that they are not Disciples because they learn not, which yet they may be in the same sense as Christ was their Master in infancy when he Taught not: And that their Infancy did not inca­pacitate them to be in Covenant with God, to be Christians, to be Church-members, &c. Christ shewed, in that in Infancy he bore all the Counter-relations, and was in the Covenant of God as Me­diator: and that (as far as we can judge) only by a virtual and not actual consent (in his Infancy and humane nature) to the Covenant of media­tion.

Mr. T. saith, [Then an Infant in the womb may be a Church-member] —

Reply. Yes, in the same sense as Christ in the womb was the Churches head: not by the solemn Investiture of Baptism, but by Consent: For be­lieving Parents do dedicate their children to God intentionally when they are in the womb: But a man would think that you your self should ac­knowledge that this dedication and so the visibi­lity of membership, hath its gradations to per­fection: Are not your proselytes visible members in [Page 85] one degree, when they openly profess Christianity (as Constantine did) and in a further degree when baptised? The interest of your opinion puts frivo­lous reasons into your mind which a child might see through.

Mr. T. addeth, [ Then an old man should not be a mem­ber.]—

Reply. Could you think now that you did not cheat your poor Reader, if partiality had not shut one of your eyes? It will follow, from the affirma­tive, that such a state of life which Christ under­took is lawful, such words which he spoke, such deeds which he did are lawful, because he did them (being not proper to the Mediator:) But will it thence follow from the negative, that no calling, no thoughts, no words, no deeds are lawful which Christ used not? A single man that hath no Wife or Children may be proved capable of Church-membership, because Christ that was such was the chief Church-member, that is, the head: But will it follow that a married man therefore may be none? Christs example will prove that a child of God may seem forsaken, may be crucified as a Male­factor: but not that no other are Gods chil­dren.

Mr. T. I deny not that Christ in infancy was head of the Church, nor that he was the Prophet of the 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, was the head of the visible Church, even of that part which is not elect: yet I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body, in the Scripture ac­ceptions which is by his spirit, he is the head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect.

[Page 86] Reply. 1. And will not the Reader be satisfied with these concessions? Mark Reader, that he granteth that Christ an Infant was the Churches head, and thus far as he mentioneth of the Church visible, and that he was the Prophet of the Church, because he was so habitually and by designation: Why, even so it is that we say an Infant may be a Member, a Disciple, a Christian habitually and by designation, (though I would use a fitter word here than habitually:) If this much be a reason for the denomination in one, why not in the other? Yield Sir, or be not angry with Mr. Gataker.

2. And then what brought in your denial of spiritual membership to the non-elect? Would you have made your Reader believe that it was any thing to the question? And when will you prove that neither 1 Cor. 12. nor any other Scripture calleth those members that have but such com­mon gifts of the spirit, as tongues, miracles, pro­phecie, &c. rejected Matth. 7.23. And that Christ never talkt in John 15. of branches in him not bearing fruit, and some cut off from him and withered. I am sure it was a whole Church visible that had carnal contentious wrang­lers against the Apostles in it, and men that were drunk at the Lords supper, &c. of whom Paul saith 1 Cor. 12.15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27. that they were the Body of Christ and members in par­ticular, and common gifts are mentioned as their Character. —

Mr. T. That the humane birth and infant state is sancti­fied (by Christs) is not true: for then it would be holy to all, —

[Page 87] Reply. I deny your consequence. There are several causes concur to the same sanctification: Christs Birth and Infancy are but a remote pre­paratory cause, of powerful sanctification, which is ever to individual persons; as all things are pure to the pure, and when they are capable sub­jects, by natural existence and Parents consent, then from all the causes together results the holiness of that state: As Christs death and merits sancti­fie us, but not immediately nor alone. But Di­vines use to take this word [ sanctifying] in an initial preparatory sense, as it signifieth the making of such a thing or state fit for holy use: As Tem­ples and Utensils are said to be sanctified, when designed to be used holily (before the use.) But must they therefore be so used by all? No, but by the Priests and Worshippers? So they use to say, that Death and the Grave are sanctified by Christ: How? Not to all, or any of the ungodly: But the curse is taken off, and they are hallowed for the holy advantage of the faithful. So is it as to his Birth and Infancy.

Mr. T. 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 this the only end or chief end — and more in Gods eye than the saving of sin­ners —

Reply. I prove that gross falshood to be true, thus:

That state or age which God visibly included and actually made the chief visible Church-member in, he did not exclude from the visible Church: But the Infant state God visibly included, and [Page 88] actually made the chief visible Church-member in▪ Therefore the Infant state God did not exclude from the visible Church.

The reason of the Major is because to include and exclude are contraries. The Minor he con­fesseth. If he say that it may be included and ex­cluded in several persons, I answer, I here spoke but of the State or Age of Infancy as such, to prove that qua talis an Infant is not excluded: For if qua talis, then it will hold ad omnes uni­versally, and then Christ had been excluded: And therefore the Age is not excluded as such, if in­cluded in one: For it must be a total exclusion: And therefore if he will prove our Infants exclu­ded, it must not be qua tales as Infants, but for some other reason, (when he c [...]n find it) and so the Age or state is not excluded.

2. But what man else could have gathered, that then this must be the only or chief end, and more in Gods eye than the saving of a sinner? Is there any more included in the assertion than barely that [ God would not have made an Infant the chief member if he would have excluded Infants as In­fants?] Who c [...]uld hence have found out that God hath various degrees of intention? And we must dispute which is chiefly in his eye: and that this was only or chiefly in his eye more than saving sinners. Let them dispute what is chiefly in Gods eye, that can better distinguish of those volitions which are all but his simple essence; but let them do it on better reasons than these.

Mr. T. I deny that Christ as man in infancy was the Pro­phet of his Church visibly, and in actu exercito: Let Mr. [...]. [Page 89] when he will assault, there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshoods.

Reply. That one little [ and] was cunningly put in to bring you off; by taking visibility and exercise conjunctly: But are your followers so cri­tical as to discern the knack? 1. Neither do we say that Infants are learners in actu exercito; and so what is this to the matter? 2. But Reader I can prove to thee if thou be impartial, though not to Mr. T. that it is neither vile nor false that Christ in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church visibly, (though not in actu exercito:)

That which was declared by Angels from Hea­ven, and by revelation to Mary, Zacchary, Anna, Symeon, and by Prophecie by them to others, is to be called visible: But that Christ was the Head and Prophet of the Church, (habitually and by designation as Mr. T. calls it) was thus de­clared — Ergo —

Mr. T. 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 a [...]hamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not, that they are no Disciples that learn not.

Reply. Reader thou art not the person that I write for, if thou perceive not here his cause no­toriously given up, and yet a noise of words used shamefully to hide what he is forced to confess.

1. He granteth both that an Infant may be (and was) the chief Prophet of the Church, and Infants may be Disciples. 2. This is it that we [Page 90] dispute for which he expresly granteth. 3. He denyeth the said Relation titles as in actu exerci­to, and so do we; that is, that Christ then pro­phesied, and Infants learn or believe. 4. He talks confidently in this denial, as if he would have fools believe that this were the difference, and we held the contrary. 5. But he is fain to jug­gle in the word [ audibly] joyned to [ visibly] for a paltry subterfuge, that if we prove Christ visibly the Prophet, we may not prove him audi­bly so. 6. Yet it is such a [ visibility] as [ maketh one known] that he had in hand; and before denied the [ visibility:] as here; but if you prove that Christ was visibly the Prophet, he can say [ but not audibly] If you prove that he was audibly so, in that Angels and Prophets au­dibly declared it, he can say [ but not in actu exer­cito] and by his own Prophesying; which none denieth. 7. And yet in the end he expresly with­out distinction denieth him to be any Prophet that Prophesieth not, or them any Disciples that learn not, when he had in terminis granted the contra­ry before, and must needs therefore grant and deny by distinction. In summ, our cause is ex­presly granted us (and expresly denied) we plead for no other kind of membership to Infants, but such as Christ had, nor for any other sort of visibility, than the visibility of their being the seed of per­sons consenting to Gods Covenant, and Gods ex­pressed will in his word, that they should be of­fered to him by consenting Parents, and that he will accept them, and did conditionally first con­sent.

SECT. XLVII, XLVIII.

R. B. 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 we 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 that is offered us against them, when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature: we now look on him as ha­ving [Page 92] 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 and 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 mankind against the di­abolical nature, so is there a further enmity le­gally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity, malignity and works. Vide Paraeum in locum. God will put an enmity by his laws (both natu­ral and positive) making it the duty of mankind 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 of mankind, and not only of the elect (for it is not they only that are obliged to this hostility and warfare) belongeth to each one according to their capacities: and therefore Infants being at the Parents dispose, it is they that are to list them in this Army against the ene­my of mankind, of which more anon. 6. A third and higher enmity is yet here comprehended, and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity, pravity and works, which may be called [natural] as it is the bent or byas of our new nature. This God giveth on­ly to his chosen, and not to all. And it contain­eth not only their consent to list themselves in his [Page 93] 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 works universally, to the death, with a com­placency in God and his service and souldiers. Here 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, wis­dom 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 benefactor: 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 [...] 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 be put in all, and therefore the same persons in which it is put. I answer, 1. There is 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 [Page 94] prove it. And, 2. Experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant, proves the difference before mentioned. And it is well known, 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these mat­ters. 2. And that the mysterie of grace was to be opened by degrees, and so but darkly at the first, that it is no wonder if we find the whole summ 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 we may certainly know that this promise speaks not only 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 she 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 mankind [...], she is possest with the natural enmity [...] diabolical nature, and this to be naturally conveyed or pro­pagated. 2. 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 mankind, 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 [Page 95] 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 she 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 natu­ral enmity against the Devil 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 an hearty enmity (habitual or actual) with the Kingdom 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 Kingdom for Satan and his Kingdom, 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 self (before any sin against recovering grace) did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdom of the Redeemer? Or whether the sins of later Parents may propagate this as an ad­ditional corruption in our nature, I will not now [Page 96] stand to discuss. Only as to our present business, it is 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 many 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 only 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 is 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 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 that very plainly, without using any violence with the Text.

11. Some learned men do use no 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 [Page 97] 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 than by original sin they were hindred, 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.

M. T. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed ser­pentive—

Reply. They that need a Reply to any thing here said, shall have none from me.

SECT. XLIX.

R.B. I Come next to prove from other parts of Scripture, That the fundamental pro­mise of Grace is thus to be 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 Church-mem­bers, 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 Church-members: 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 [Page 98] 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 the 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, but through the righteousness of faith. Now it is certain that this Covenant seal­ed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed, did comprehend Infants. The consequence of the major then is evident, that the same promise expressed more concisely, is to be expounded by the same expressed more fully: And it is acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees.

Mr. T. That the fundamental Promise of Grace, Gen. 3.15. doth 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.

Reply. If we be really of one mind, it is pitty we should make men think we differ: Mark this concession Reader, [ The fundamental promise of [Page 99] Grace doth include Infants.] The Grace of that promise is our Ʋnion Relative to Christ and his Church, and the benefits internal and external belonging to Christs members. Do you believe that our union with the visible Church as such, and participation in its priviledges, is none of that Grace?

Mr. T. This I deny, that it includes all Infants, or all In­fants of Believers, and that any Infant is made a visible Church-member by that promise as the next cause or sole effi­cient.]

Reply. It will come to something anon: 1. That all Infants are made Church-members by it, did any of us ever affirm? Though if the Parents dis­sent had not hindred, and their consent had made them and their Infants capable Recipients, it would have been all.

2. The Covenant or Law of Grace giveth vi­sible Church-membership conditionally to all that hear it. Deny this, and you know not what you do. I first ask you, Doth not the Law of Grace (or Promise) give both mystical and visible Church-membership to all that hear it that are at age and have the use of Reason? (I speak not of membership in a particular Church which some may want opportunity to enjoy, but in the uni­versal.) Deny this, and you deny Christs Go­spel. Doth he not say, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: whoever believeth shall not perish — whoever will, let him take the water of life freely: He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out: Go into the high-ways and hedges, and compel them to come in, &c. If [Page 100] Gods Law, Covenant, Promise or Donation (call it which you had rather) do contain a con­ditional Gift of Christ, pardon and life to all the adult, (which it beseemeth none but an Infidel to deny,) ask thy Conscience, Reader, whether this blessed Covenant give no such conditional right to any Infant in the world? Are they all excluded? And why? Are they worse than their Pa­rents? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth to Parents, it must be on a condition to be per­formed by the Parents, or such as are so far entrusted.

Mr. T.'s talking of [ the next cause, and the sole efficient] seem to me the words of a man that knew not what to say, but was resolved that he would not yield: Sir, do you grant that the pro­mise maketh Infants visible Church-members, as any cause, next or remote, sole or cooperating?] If not, why cheat you your simple followers by this talk? If you do, we are agreed, and why con­tend you? If Logical notions are our difference, say so; I think as it is a Beneficial Relation, the Parents consent and dedication, and the childs being Theirs, are the dispositio materiae, called by some causae Receptivae vel dispositivae: and that Gods donation is the sole efficient in which his dona­tive word (call it what you will) is the Instru­ment: This is plain Logick. But you that pro­fess that your Church-membership is it self no benefit (and so owe God no thanks for it, and yet make such a stir about it) cannot indeed hold, that Gods love or mercy, or Christs me­rits, or the Covenant or Promise are givers of it to young or old: For they give nothing but [Page 101] benefits. Be not angry to have your absurdities opened, but before you die be sober and reform them.

He addeth [ I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical Grace, though mixt, and that it did include Infants, and that they were Church-members, to wit, of the invisible Church of the Elect — And that Abrahams Infants in his house were visible Church-members, but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical, but by the transeunt fact: and if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant, it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises, rather than Evangelical.

Reply. About 23 and 24 years of age I was my self in doubt of Infant Baptism: But had I read such a Writer as this against it, I think he would have easily resolved me for it. 1. The Covenant to Abrahams family was a Covenant of Evangelical Grace, he saith, (And surely so was that to Adam, and Noe before.) And it inclu­ded Infants, but only as Elect in the Church in­visible. But the conditional Promise or Cove­nant is confest to include the Non-elect at age: And what! None of them in Infancy? Reader, How can this be called a Covenant, for God only to say [ I will save all such Infants as I elect] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the world on any condition, nor give a title to any person that can be known by themselves or others? They confound the Decree of God with his Co­venant. If God had made no other Law, Pro­mise or Covenant, with the adult, but [ I will save whom I will save] who would have taken this for a Law or Covenant? And what right or hope doth this give to Christians for their Chil­dren more than Pagans?

[Page 102]And, Reader, if God have given no condition or character antecedent, as a differencing reason or qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not, but only told us that he will save whom he list, this maketh Infants no sub­jects of his Kingdom, under no Law, and so lia­ble to no judgement, nor to stand in judgement with the rest of the world, but only to be used as beasts or stones, by Divine natural motion as he will. And then, how can you say that any Infants shall be damned, or not saved? Or that it shall be one of a million at least that shall not? For if there be no Law that giveth Right to Pardon and Salvation to any one Infant in the world, and yet many are saved, it will follow, 1. That God is (as the prophane say) better than his word, and will save many to whom he never gave right to it by promise. 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes? If be­sides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie, God will save many in a neutral state, why may he not, saith the ungodly, save me also? for In­fants once deserved punishment by original sin: And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves, he may do so by me. 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know, that die in Infancy.

And do all the promises to the seed of the faith­ful, in the second Commandment, and Exod. 34.7. and many another Text, mean no such thing as they speak, as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition, but only [ I will save my elect?]

[Page 103]And why might not this Covenant [ I will save my Elect] be made with Cain, or Cham, or Ju­das, as well as with Abraham?

2. He saith, Abrahams Infants were visible Church-mem­bers, but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical.]

Reply. What a bare put off is that, of a man that must say something? Is it at all by the Cove­nant as Evangelical? If yea, we have our desire. If not, what meaneth [ barely] but the nakedness of your ill cause?

3. Then cometh next [ And if in any respect by vir­tue of the Covenant (which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk, or will not know) it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises, rather than Evangeli­cal.]

Reply. See, Reader, some more of the mysterie: Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house, but Church-membership signified but hou­shold and civil promises: Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was? The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult.

But we may yet mistake him, For [ rather] is not a negative: It is [ Rather than Evangeli­cal] which is but a preference, not a denial. O for plain honesty in things divine!

SECT. L.

R. B. 2. 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 Church-member 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 Church-members? Except only the Anaba­ptists, who refuse or deny the mercy, and so re­fuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their Infants be Church-members, I 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 Church-member in the world, since the creation to this day, that was not a Church-member, (except the Anaba­ptists that refuse the mercy or deny it.)

Reply. Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer, save a cross challenge (oft answered) and the instance of Timothy: To which I say, that if Ti­mothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews, he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church. (Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son, that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were.) But his [Page 105] Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal.

SECT. LI.

R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture, I will a little enquire in­to the light or Law of Nature it self, and see what that saith to the point in hand. And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ, and next of Gods acceptance of them, and entertaining them into that estate. And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self (at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them;) which I prove thus. 1. The law of Na­ture bindeth us to give to every one his own due: But Infants are Gods own due; Ergo, the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God. By [giving] here I mean not an aliena­tion of propriety, to make that to be Gods that was not so before; but an acknowledgement of his right, with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God, as his own; for his use and ser­vice, when he is capable thereof. If you say, In­fants being not capable of doing service, should not be devoted to it till they can do it; I an­swer, they are capable at present of a legal obli­gation to future duty, and also of the relation which followeth that obligation, together with the honour of a Church-member (as the child of a Noble [Page 106] man is of his Honours and title to his Inheri­tance) and many other mercies of the Covenant. And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Medi­ator or head of the Church in his Infancy, yet for all that he must be head of the Church then, and not (according to this arguing) stay till he were capable of doing those works. And so is it with his members.

Reply. Here is so little said that needs but this remarke, that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly, which being Ac­cepted of God is to Church-membership as pri­vate Marriage to publick, where publication is wanting: But he denieth that Parents may dedi­cate them by Baptism: But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent, it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way. As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature, if he cannot confute it, let him not strive and sin against nature.

SECT. LII.

R. B. 2. THe law of nature bindeth all Parents to do their best to secure Gods right, and their Childrens good, and to prevent their sin and misery: But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication, doth tend to secure Gods right, and their Childrens good, and to pre­vent their sin and misery: For they are under a double obligation, which they may be minded of be­times, [Page 107] and which may hold them the more strong­ly to their duty, and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God.

Mr. T. Really Infant Baptism is a disadvantage, 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is, and so are kept in presumption, &c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism, &c.

Reply. This nearly concerneth our cause: I once inclined to these thoughts my self: But I am satisfied, 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from per­sonal serious Covenanting with God at age. We tell our Children and all the adult, that their In­fant Covenanting by Parents, will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves: And that without as se­rious a faith and consent of their own then as if they had never been baptized, they cannot be sa­ved: What hurt then as to this doth their In­fant interest do them?

2. Yea doubtless it is a great help: For, 1. To be in the way of Gods Ordinance and Benediction is much. 2. And (knowing you deny that) I add, to be conscious of an early engagement, may do much to awe the minds of Children; yea and to cause them to love that Christ which hath received them, and that Society to which they belong.

3. If Children till Baptized have any thoughts of dying, according to you, they must have little hopes of mercy: And God accounteth not the spirit of bondage best, no not for Children. They cannot well be educated in the Love of [Page 108] God, who must believe that they are damned if they die, and that God hath not given them any promise of life.

4. Experience of many Moors (servants) among us and in our Plantations, (besides ancient history) assureth us, that delaying Baptism till age tendeth to make people delay repentance, and think I am but as I was, and if I sin longer all will be pardoned at baptism, and I must after live strictlier, and therefore (as Constantine and many more) they will be baptized Christians when there is no remedy.

5. And experience assureth us that it were the way to work out Christianity and restore Infide­lity in any Nation: For had not Christ early possession, and were not Nations discipled and baptized, Christians were like to be almost as thin as Puritans now: and the multitude being Infidels from a cross interest (such as divisions cause) would be ready on all occasions (as they did in Japan and Monicongo) to root them out.

I take this to be a very concerning considera­tion, whether in reason Infant Baptism be like to do more good or harm. The not calling men to se­rious Covenanting at age doth unspeakable harm: To have a few good words about Confirmation in the Liturgie, and such as Doct. Hammonds wri­tings of it, will not save ignorant ungodly souls, nor the souls of the Pastors that betray them: I have said my thoughts of this long ago in a Trea­tise of Confirmation.

But I must profess that it seemeth to me, that if Christ had left it to our wills, it is much liker [Page 109] to tend to the good of souls, and the propaga­ting Christianity, and the strength of the Church, for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant Covenant and Church state, and as serious a Covenanting also at age, when we pass into the Church state of the Adult, than to be without the former, and left to the expectation of adult ba­ptism alone.

SECT. LIII, to LVIII.

R. B. THe law of nature bindeth Parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society, if they have but leave so to do: But here Parents have leave to enter them into the Church, which is the most honourable and profitable society. Er­go. That they have leave, is proved, 1. God ne­ver forbad any man in the world to do this sin­cerely, (the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely;) and a not forbidding is to be interpre­ted as leave in case of such participation of be­nefits: As all laws of men in doubtful cases are to be interpreted [...], in the most favou­rable sense. So hath Christ taught us to inter­pret his own: When they speak of duty to God, they must be interpreted in the strictest sense: When they speak of benefits to man, they must be interpreted in the most favourable sense that they will bear.

2. It is the more evident, that a not forbid­ding in such cases is to be taken for leave, be­cause [Page 110] God hath put the principle of self-preserva­tion, and desiring our own welfare, and the wel­fare of our Children so deeply in humane nature, that he can no more lay it by than he can cease to be a reasonable creature. And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural ne­cessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness, where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him. We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness, but what is in the law of nature it self, and to use this where God forbiddeth not, if good be then to be found, cannot be unlawful.

3. It is evident from what is said before (and elsewhere) that it is more than a silent leave of Infants Church-membership that God hath vouchsafed us. For in the forementioned funda­mental promise, explained more fully in after times, God signified his will that so it should be. It cannot be denied, but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise, and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded, there be no excluding term. Ʋpon so much encouragement and hope then it is the duty of Parents by the law of nature to enter their Infants into the Covenant, and into that so­ciety that partake of these hopes, and to list them into the Army of Christ.

4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Na­ture, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children. But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army, is an allowed or of­fered benefit to them, Ergo, &c. For the Major, [Page 111] these principles in the law of nature do contain it. 1. That the Infant is not sui juris, but is at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good. That the Parents have power to oblige their chil­dren to any future duty or suffering, that is cer­tainly to their own good: and so may enter them into Covenants accordingly: And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the child. 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own child. As if a Prince would offer Honours, and Lordships, and Immunities to him and his heirs: if he will not accept this for his heirs, but only for himself, it is unnatural. Yea, if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits. For the Minor, that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to Infants is manifested already, and more shall be.

And this leads me up to the second point, which I propounded to consider of; whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that Infants should have the benefit of being Church-members, supposing it first known by supernatural revelati­on, that Parents are of that society, and how ge­neral the promise is, and how gracious God is. And 1. It is certain to us by nature that Infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged. 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Common-wealths in the world (perfecte sed im­perfecta membra) being secured from violence by the laws, and capable of honours and right to in­heritances, [Page 112] and of being real subjects under obli­gations to future duties, if they survive. And this shews that they are also capable of being Church-members, and that nature revealeth to us, that the Infants case much followeth the case of the Parents, especially in benefits. 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth, so far as I can learn, to repute their Infants in the same Re­ligious society with themselves, as well as in the same civil society. 4. Ʋnder the Covenant of works (commonly so called) or the perfect rigo­rous law that God made with man in his pure nature; the Infants should have been in the Church, and a people holy to God, if the Parents had so continued themselves. And consider, 1. That holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now, and that in the establishing of the way of propagation, God was no more obli­ged to order it so, that the children of righteous Parents should have been born with all the per­fections of their Parents and enjoyed the same priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants should be of the same society with their Parents, and have the immunities of that society. 2. We have no reason when the design of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace, to think that love and grace are so much less under the Gospel to the members of Christ, than under the Law to the members or seed of Adam, as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous Parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the society, whereof the Parents were [Page 113] members. 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature, proclaiming even par­doning mercy to slow thence, Exod. 34. and in the second Commandment. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their Parents sakes: as many Texts of Scripture shew (and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes, that the sins of nearer parents are im­puted as part of our original or natural guilt.) So much of that.

Reply. Mr. T. saith nothing to all, that I think the Reader needeth a reply to.

SECT. LVIII.

R. B. YEt before I cite any more particular Texts, I will add this one argument from the tenour of the Covenant of grace, as ex­pressed in many Texts of Scripture. According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace, God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people, that are (in a natural or law sense) wil­ling to be his people, and to take him for their God. But the Infants of believing Parents are thus willing, Ergo. The Major is unquestionable. The Minor is proved from the very law of nature be­fore expressed. Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sense, Ergo, the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sense, and that is of the Parents, who have the full dispose of them, [Page 114] and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them (for their good) till they come to use of reason themselves. The Parents therefore by the light and law of nature choosing the better part for their children, and offering and devoting them to God, by the obligation of his own natu­ral law, he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel, refuse those that are so offered. And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth, he will in no wise cast out, Joh. . . And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him, that are offered by those that have the power to do it, though they cannot offer themselves. For legally this act is taken for their own. Thus I have shewed you some of the fundamental title that Infants of Believers have to Church-mem­bership, and our obligation to dedicate them to God.

Reply. Mr. T. saith [that some acts of the Pa­rents are legally taken for the childs is not deni­ed.] But here he denieth it, and I leave his de­nial with my copious proof in my Treatise of In­fant-baptism to the Readers.

SECT. LIX.

R. B. YOu must now in reason expect, that in­fants Church-membership being thus established, partly in the law of nature, and part­ly in the fundamental promise, what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment, but confirmations and intimations of what was be­fore [Page 115] done, rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it, than being such first establishing laws or promises themselves. And from hence I may well add this further argument. If there be certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-membership, but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all speaking of it as no new thing, then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence, to assign this be­ginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest. But the former is true, ergo, the later. You con­fess that Infants were Church-members once. You only conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conceit hath not a word to sup­port it in the Text. The right to such a bles­sing was then new to Abrahams seed, when Abra­ham first believed: But when it began to belong to Infants of Believers in general, no Text ex­cept this before cited doth mention. Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Church-membership of Infants, but only an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing.

Reply. To this Mr. T. still affirmeth that Infants Church-membership was proper to the Hebrews only. Reader, though they had their peculiari­ties, is it credible that the Infants of that one small country only should be so differently dealt with by God, from all the world else, even He­noch 's, Noe 's, Sem 's and all from Adam to the end of the world, that these Infants only should be Church-members and no others? what un­likely [Page 116] things (yea against evidence) can some believe?

SECT. LX, LXI, LXII.

R. B. NOW for the Texts that further inti­mate such a foregoing establishment. 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living: For it is to be noted what Bishop Usher saith, Annal. vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum (post semen promissum) mulieri Evae nomen a ma­rito est impositum, Gen. 3.20. quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam, sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ip­sius, Messiam promissum: quomodo & post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita. 1 Pet. 3.6. Gal. 4.31.] He put this name on her after the promise, because she was to be the mother of all the living, not only that live the life of nature, but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed. So that as she was the root of our nature, we are her natural seed; and as she was a believer, and we the seed of her a believer, so is she the mo­ther of a holy seed, and we that are her seed are holy, as a people visibly dedicated to God.

2. When Cain was born, his mother called him [possession] because she had obtained a man of the Lord, that is, saith Ainsworth, [with his fa­vour, and of his good will,] and so a Son of pro­mise, and of the Church. And therefore it is to be noted, that when Cain had sinned by killing [Page 117] his brother, God did curse him, and cast him out of his presence, Gen. 4.14, 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God, saith Ainsworth, [that is, from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father, who being a Prophet, had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary, to come into Gods presence or before him, 1 Chron. 16.29. is ex­plained in Psal. 96.8. to be the coming into his Courts.] Very many learned men give the same exposition of it. Now if Cain were now excom­municate, then was he before of the Church: nay it is certain by his sacrificing, and other proof, however this Text be interpreted: But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable that he entred into the Church at any other time, as we give of his entrance at his na­tivity.

When Eve bare Seth, she so named him as a Son of mercy in faith, as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room, faithful as Abel, and the father of our Lord after the flesh, as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25. And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an Infant member of the visible Church? I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed, or saith, that Seth was without the Church in his infancy, doth speak in my ears so improbably, and so unlike the Scripture, that I am very confident I shall never believe him.

Mr. T. 's Answer to all, is a denial: saith he, [There is no intimation that Seth was an Infant member of the visi­ble Church; from which Ishmael was not excluded: In [Page 118] which though I place not Seth, I do not thereby excommuni­cate him, or say that he was without the Church in his In­fancy.

Reply. But you say He was without the visible Church: (or else within and without are consistent with you.) And whether Ishmael was within, and Seth, and Henoch, and Sem without, I will no more dispute with you.

SECT. LXIII, to LXX.

R. B. NOte also, that as God had thus cast out Cain, and supplied Abels room by Seth, and had given each of them posterity; so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous, and putting two titles on these two distinct generations, calling some the sons of God, and others the daughters of men, Gen. 6.2. Supposing that you reject the old con­ceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women, the current ordinary expo­sition I think will stand, that these were the pro­geny of Seth, and other members of the Church, who are called the Sons of God; and that it was the progeny of Cain, and other wicked ones, that are called the daughters of men. Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked, but the children of men, as being a generation sepa­rated from the Church from the birth. And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly god­ly ones, but sons of God, as being the seed of the Saints not cast out, but members of the Church, or [Page 119] the sons of those who were devoted to God, and so devoted to him themselves: a separated gene­ration belonging to God as his visible Church. Where note, that these that are called the sons of God, even the line of Seth and other godly Pa­rents, were yet so wicked that God repented that he made them, and destroyed them in the flood, sparing only Noah and his family. So that it was not their own godliness, that made them cal­led the sons of God, but their relation, Church state and visible separation from open unchurched Idolaters. Compare this phrase with the like, Deut. 14.1. 2 Cor. 6.18. In the former it is said [ye are the children of the Lord your God, ye shall not cut your selves, &c.] where the whole people, Infants and all, are called Gods children, as being a people separated to him from the Ido­latrous world; and so in the next vers. called a holy people unto God, peculiar to him, &c. And 2 Cor. 6.8. Come out from among them, and be ye separate, &c. and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.] So that Gods sons and daughters are that society that are separated from Idolaters unto the worship of God as the vi­sible Church is. And then it appears that the ge­neration of the righteous, even from the womb, were enumerated to the rest, in that they are not mentioned as a people called out here and there, and initiated at age (there is no men­tion of any such thing:) but as a stock or gene­ration opposed to the daughters of men, or of the unchurched, who were such from their infancy [Page 120] as all will grant. For it was not the same men that were the Parents of those here called the daughters of men and the sons of God (though some of the later might be excommunicate when they fell:) But it plainly intimates, that it was another sort of men that these were the daughters of, than those that were Parents to the sons of God. So Ainsworth in loc. [The sons of God, i. e. the men of the Church of God, for to such Moses saith, Deut. 14.1, &c. 1 John 3.1. Daughters of men, meaning of Cains posterity that were out of Gods Church, Gen. 4.14.] So our Annotations, and many more.

An intimation of this priviledge, and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise, appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous, both before and after the flood, which I will not stand on particularly.

And when all the world had so defiled them­selves, that God was resolved to cut them off; he spared Noah and his family or sons. Though Cham was to be cursed, yet was he of the Church which worshipped the true God, and spared as a son of Noah, and one of that society. And if God so far spared him then for his Fathers sake as to house him in the Ark (the type of the Church) he sure took him to be of the same so­ciety in his infancy, and then bare him the same favour on the same account.

As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue, as he did Adam, with an [increase and multiply] and made a Cove­nant with him and his seed after him. Which [Page 121] Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should be drowned no more, and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed, and even with the beasts of the field, yet doth it im­port a special favour to Noah and his seed, as one whom God would shew a more special respect to, as he had done in his deliverance, and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the bet­ter. For though the word [Covenant] be the same to man and beast, yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word, as applied to each. And in­deed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an [increase and multiply] if all his In­fant posterity must be cast or left out of the visi­ble Church, and so left as common or unclean. This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdom of the Devil. If he that was so mercifully hou­sed in the Ark with all his children, must now be so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church, it were a strange change in God, and a strange blessing on Noah! And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed, if all that seed must be so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain.

Moreover it is certain that Noah did prophe­tically, or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Shem and Japhet. And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God, shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him. And it is plain that it is not only the persons, but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intend­ed. It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan [Page 122] and his succeeding posterity that were to be ser­vants to Shem and Japhet, that is, to their poste­rity. And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem, as well as the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the Infant seed of them out of Gods Church. And well they may, if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God, Saith Ainsworth in loc. [under this Shem also himself receiveth a blessing: for blessed is the peo­ple, whose God Jehovah is, Psal. 144.15. and eternal life is implied herein, for God hath pre­prepared for them a City of whom he is not asha­med to be called their God, Heb. 11.16. and Shem is the first man in Scripture that hath ex­presly this honour.]

Moreover in Gen. 9.27. in Japhets blessing there is much, though in few words, to this pur­pose intimated. First, note that the Jewish Church is called [the tents of Shem.] From whence it appeareth, that the Church priviledges of that people begun not with or from Abraham, but were before: And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham, and after all the additional promises to Abraham, the Jewish Church is still denominated [the tents of Shem:] now they were the tents of Shem before Abrahams days. And therefore it is clear, that it being the same Church, must be supposed to have the same sort of members or materials: and there­fore Infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after. That Church which [Page 123] was Shems tents had Infant Church-members (for the Jews Church is so called, into which Japhet was to pass:) But the Church both before and af­ter Abraham was Shems tents, Ergo.

Yet further let it here be noted, that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass. I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applyeth the word [dwell] to Japhet than to God, and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles, as many Expositors have cleared at large. And so, as Ainsworth saith, the sense is that Ja­phet shall be [united with the Churches of the Jews, the posterity of Shem, which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joynt-heirs, and of the same body, and joynt-partakers of Gods promise in Christ, the stop of the partition-wall being broken down, &c. Ephes. 3.6. & 2.14, 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church, when Shems posteri­ty should be cut off, &c.] vid. ult. Now if it be Shems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in, then as Shems Infants were Church-members, so must Japhets, and not all his Infant seed be cast or left out. So that here is a promise of Infant Church-membership unto the Gentiles in these words.

Reply. To all this the summ of Mr. T. 's an­swers are, 1. A denial of the senses given of some Texts, which I leave to the Readers exa­mination, being resolved not to tire him with a tedious Reply. 2. He grants that their persons were blessed, God their God, and their seed in the Church: As if Gods open Covenant and [Page 124] promise made them not visible members but invi­sible.

SECT. LXX, to LXXIX.

R. B. WE come next to the Promise made to Abraham, which I shall say the less to, because you confess it. But again note, that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people, and so of Infants to be members of the Church, to be at Abrahams call from Ur; 1. There is no one word of that in the Text. 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham, yea, and from Haran, and lived with him: were not Lot and his Infants Church-mem­bers then?

3. The chief note I intend is this, that there is no more said then to prove Infants Church-mem­bers, than what we have shewed was said long before, and is said after of the Gentiles Infants, no nor so much. If therefore the passage of Abra­ham out of Ur, yea, or the promise made to him in Haran, Gen. 12.2, 3. will prove Infants Church-membership, then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews.

And here I note further, that in the begin­ning before the command for Circumcision, you plainly yield that Infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision, and begun not with it, but before. And indeed I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism. Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision, [Page 125] but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith. Ishmael was a member before, and so was Isaac, and the Infants born in Abra­hams house.

Whether there were any promise or precept of this (but a meer transeunt fact) let the Text last mentioned, and the following bear witness. Gen. 12.2, 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed, and, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee — and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham, Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my Co­venant which you shall keep between me and you, &c. to vers. 15. In all this let these things be noted, 1. That here is an express promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed af­ter him. 2. That it is not only de praesenti, but for the future, called an everlasting Cove­nant. 3. That this promise or Covenant doth ma­nifestly imply and include Infants Church-mem­bership (as you confess.) 4. That yet here is not the least word that intimates an institution of it de novo, but rather the contrary plainly intima­ted. The promises before Gen. 17. are mainly about the multiplication of Abrahams seed. What is that to Church—membership? (except what in­timates the promised seed, of which anon.) Ha­gar hath a promise also of the multiplication of Ishmaels seed. And the very precept of Circum­cision is only one part of the Infant members, viz. the males, and therefore it cannot be foundation [Page 126] of their Church-membership, which leaves out half the members. 5. Note that the promise that God will be their God, doth expresly contain the Church-membership of the seed. 6. Note that this is more than a transeunt fact, Ergo, being an everlasting Covenant. Had it been a natu­ral transeunt fact, that had left no permanent ti­tle behind it in the obligation of the Covenant, then it had been null and void as soon as spoken: then the word of God is but a bare sound and of no further force. 7. Note that the Apostle (as is said) Rom. 4.10, 11, 12, 13. doth fully manifest to us, that this promise was made to Abraham as a believer, and that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, yet be­ing uncircumcised: and therefore that the chief part of the Covenant of having God for our God, and his taking us as his peculiar people, belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. 8. And he oft sheweth that the faithful are Abrahams seed, and therefore the chief blessings of the pro­mise belong to all the faithful. But one of the blessings was, that their Infants should be compre­hended in the same Church and Covenant, Ergo, the Infants of the faithful who are the heirs of the same promise, must be comprehended in it too.

9. I think it is not to be made light of as to this matter, that in the great promise, Gen. 12.3. the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth, all the fami­lies of the earth shall be blessed, as the Heb. Sa­mar. Arabic. or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the [Page 127] Sept. [...]. And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised, and so a Gospel blessing ( Ergo, the Syriac. adds and in thy seed, and the Arab. hath by thee.) And the Apostle fully testifieth that. So that as tribes, kindreds, families, do most certainly comprehend the Infants, and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church, so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ.

10. Note that as Infant Church-membership is here clearly implied in Infant Circumcision, so they are two distinct things; and as the sign is here commanded de novo, so the thing signified (I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant) is commanded with it, though not de novo, as a thing now be­ginning as the sign did. So that here is in Cir­cumcision not only a command to do the circum­cising outward act, but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant, and so withal for the Parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God, and devote them to him as his separated pe­culiar people. So that here are two distinct du­ties concurrent. The one external newly insti­tuted, the other internal not newly institu­ted. And therefore the former may cease, and yet the later stand: and it is no proof that the later (Covenant engagement of Infants to God) is ceased, because the sign of Circumcision is ceased; no more than it proves that such Cove­nant engagement did then begin when Circum­cision did begin; or that women were not Church-members [Page 128] separated, engaged, dedicated to God in Infancy, because they were not circumcised. And no more than you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were un­circumcised for 40 years. So that here you have a command for entring Infants as Church-mem­bers. And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3. & Gen. 17.

And when I consider the Parents, breeding and manners of Rebekah, I think it far more proba­ble that she was a Church-member from her In­fancy, than that she was entred afterwards at age, or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her.

And as here are before mentioned standing Co­venants, so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be fur­ther than to Abrahams natural seed, not only in the express promise of the blessing to all the nati­ons or families on earth (of which before) but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is com­mon to Abraham with other true believers. For Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. it is thus alledged [because thou hast done this thing, &c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.] And Gen. 26.3, 4, 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac, and the same reason assigned, [because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.] How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing, I am not de­termining; but taking the words as I find them in general, I may conclude, that they are here [Page 129] given as a cause or reason of it some way or other? And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason, yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction, we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common: At least, if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed (upon the freeness of Gods grace, or the eminency of Abrahams obedience,) yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found. It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithful and obedient, yea, to prefer that before his own life, and not a son only, it may be hence gathered, that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that ac­count, will bless theirs on the same, with the same blessings in the main (as to his favour and ac­ceptance of them) though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of exter­nal things.

In Exod. 12.48. there is a law for the circum­cising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land, that will keep the passover: which com­prehendeth their Church-membership, as is shewed.

Reply. To all this neither do I find any new thing calling for any answer, but what the con­sidering Reader can easily make: His repeated sayings, that if [Admission be by Baptism I must make Parents Ministers to baptize] a child may well answer. There are more Parties that act in baptism than one: God by his Ministers expres­seth his Covenant-Gift and Consent, and deliver­eth it sealed to the Receiver by the instituted in­vesting symbol: The party receiving expresseth [Page 130] his consent, and this the Parent hath power and trust to do for the child, as you may take a Lease for your Child: Cannot the Parent do this, and so be a Cause of Reception without being a Minister?

SECT. LXXIX, to LXXXVI.

R. B. THe promise to the whole people of Is­rael, Infants and all, that they should be [a peculiar people, a Kingdom of Priests, and a holy Nation,] Exod 19.5, 6. you cannot de­ny. This is a promise, and not a transeunt fact which made no promise. And the people are cal­led to keep Gods Covenant, that they might have this promise fulfilled to them. Yea, if you had said, that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise, reaching but to the persons then existent, and dying with them, though you had spoken more sense, yet no more truth than when you denied the law and promise, and substituted a transeunt fact. For, 1. It is expresly a promise de futuro to a Nation. 2. Yea, and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel, in­timating the fulfilling of the promise even to them, as the promise to Abraham was to the faithful who were his uncircumcised seed. However, here is a Covenant granting by way of confirma­on the blessing of Church-membership to Infants with the rest of Israel: For certainly, this pecu­liarity, and holiness, and priesthood here mentio­ned, containeth their Church-membership: It is [Page 131] undeniable therefore, that such Church-member­ship is here granted by Promise or Covenant, not as a thing then beginning, but by way of confir­mation of the like former grants. And it is to be noted, that though this promise is made to all Israel, yet not to be fulfilled to any of them, but on condition that they [obey Gods voice, and keep his Covenant,] vers. 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing, and therefore so may do now.

In Deut. 17.1, 2. The Infants with the rest are called the children of God, and a holy and pe­culiar people to the Lord their God.

And Deut. 26.14, 18. the Covenant is expres­sed [Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judge­ments, and to hearken to his voice. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, &c. And that thou maist be an holy people, &c. Is here no promise, when the promise is exprest? and is here no Covenant, where the mutual Covenant is de­scribed? And I think you grant that Infants are included.

So Deut. 28.4, 9. Where the promise to the na­tion is, that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandments, they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies; and the Lord will esta­blish them a holy people to himself, as he had sworn unto them.] Here is not only a Covenant and Promise for the future, but also an oath con­firming it, as annexed to the same before. Is [Page 132] this establishing Covenant on Promise but a tran­seunt fact? or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised, which was received before by the same means?

And Ezra 9.2. They are called the holy seed.

Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough. It is called a Covenant. All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God, and which he made to them. It was a Covenant, to establish them for a people to himself, and that he may be to them a God, as he had before said and sworn. It is a Cove­nant made even with them that stood not there, whether it be meant only of the successive Israelites (and then it is not a transeunt Covenant) or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms (and then it's not proper to Israel.) It is a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites: but as obedient to the Covenant terms, and Co­venant breaking would cut them off, vers. 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26. Is not Church-membership contain­ed in, Gods being their God, and taking them for his people thus in Covenant? Doth not the pro­mise give them an established right in this blessing? Is all this then no promise, but a transeunt fact?

Deut. 30.19. There is a law and promise, choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter, 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it, there would have been no pe­nalty, and then he would not have made it death to withdraw. It is the same Covenant which Jo­si [...]h caused the people to enter, 2 Kings 23.2, 3. [Page 133] 2 Chron. 34.31, 32. Of Levit. 25.41, 54, 55. I have spoken elsewhere, and of some other Texts.

Mr. T. — For the sole efficient cause being actually put (as the Covenant and the Parents believing are, Deut. 29.) the effect must be in act: but it is not so in the unborn: therefore the Covenant and Parents faith are not the sole efficient — so that though the Covenant give a Right to a blessing, yet it doth not make actually visi­ble Church-members, without some other transeunt fact —

Reply. (The rest let the Reader make his best of.) We are it seems by this time in a fair way of agreement, and have almost done our work. It seemeth by this time he could find in his heart to grant that the Covenant is an efficient cause, though not the sole efficient: well, we will not stick on that: Gods love and revelation, and Christs merits shall be antecedent chief efficients: And he seemeth now instead of saying still that [It is only by the Physical transeunt fact] to be content if we will say, it is not till or without that fact, that is, that men are not members of the Church till they are men. We will not be so sowre as to deny him that much. And indeed is this all at the upshot? But I will not grant him the logical notion too easily, though we will not quarrel about it. I think a cause materially may long exist before the effect, though it be not for­maliter causa till it effect: And I think that Gods conditional Covenant or Promise, is but causa vir­tualis & aptitudinalis till it effect, and yet may be the sole proximate efficient of our Right af­terward: I think the childs being born did not [Page 134] effect his Right to Church Relation, nor doth our Faith now, nor the Parents faith or consent, but only as a condition make men capable Recipi­ents. And I think the effect may begin de novo without any change in the efficient, upon a change in the Recipient: And that the Sun unchanged is the proximate efficient of motion, light and heat, to the next existent wight that received not his influx before it did exist: And the Covenant or Donative Instrument of God which saith [He that believeth shall be justified] may effect my Justification when I believe and not before, though my faith effect it not at all, but dispose the recipient. But I deny that the Parents faith be­ing put, all the capacity of the recipient is put, even when he is born: For if it be possible for the Parent to consent for himself and not for his child, and to devote himself and not his child to God, part of the condition of reception is wanting.

As far as I perceive, could I but hope to be so happy a disputant, as to convince Mr. T. that Church-membership (visible) is any benefit at all it self, or was to the Israelites, he would grant me all that I plead for of the conveyance of it by Covenant. And if I cannot it is a hard case.

SECT. LXXXVI.

R. B. THe second Commandment, Exod. 20.5, 6. Deut. 5.9, 10. I think is a law, and containeth a promise or premiant part, wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the gene­rations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments: of which I have also spoken elsewhere, to which I refer you. I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise, and discovery of Gods resolution, concerning the children of all that love him, whether Jews or Gentiles, to whom this Commandment belongs: nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Church-membership: And that this is fetcht from the ve­ry gracious nature of God, I find in his proclaim­ing his Name to Moses, Exod. 34.6, 7.

Mr. T. If this mercy here imply Church-membership to the Infants of them that love him to a thousand Ge­nerations, then it implieth it to all the Infants in the world — But there is nothing to prove that this mer­cy must be Church-membership, or that it must be to all the children of them that love God, or that it must be to them in Infancy — I incline to conceive this a pro­mise of temporal mercies, chiefly to the Israelites —

Reply. 1. That it is not only of temporal mer­cies, the words [Love and Hate] as the qualifi­cation of the Parents, seem to prove; and the joyning the children to the Parents in the retri­bution: And all the terms seem above such a sense: It is the revenge of a jealous God on Ido­laters, and mercy to his Lovers that is spoken of: [Page 136] And the joyning this Command to the first which setleth our relation to God, with the Laws an­nexed in Deut. for the cutting off whole Cities (Parents and Children) that turn from God to Idols, sheweth that it reached to Church-Commu­nion and Life.

2. And that it was not only to the Israelites (whatever you chiefly mean) is proved both in that it is in the Decalogue, and the proclaimed name of God, Exod. 34.5, 6. and exemplified throughout the Scripture and in the Gospel.

2. As to the extent, we can hardly expect that the world should endure a thousand Generations: Therefore it can mean but that God who bound­eth the punishment to the third and fourth gene­ration, will set no bounds to the succession of his mercies while our capacity continueth. And what­ever the mercies be, the exposition of this conti­nuance concerneth you as much as me.

3. As to the conditions, I doubt not but it sup­poseth that the child at age imitate the Parents in their Love or Hatred, duty or sin: And that if on Repentance the Parent be forgiven, his sin may not be visited to the third and fourth. And if a child of Godly Parents turn wicked, the right is intercepted.

4. But the Commandment with the foresaid exposition shews, that God meaneth that his Retri­bu [...]ion to Parents that Love or Hate him, shall extend to their children as such; unless they inter­rupt it at age by their own acts: And if to their children qua tales, then to Infants.

And it speaketh such a state of mercy as can­not [Page 137] in reason be conceived to belong to them without, and can mean no less than Gods visible favour, by which the Church is differenced from the world, when Lovers and Haters are distinguished sides.

And when God hath Recorded this decreed granted distinguished mercy to the children of the faithful as such in the Tables of stone, sure it is a visible notification, which will make them visi­ble favorites and Church-members as soon as they visibly exist.

And the quatenus seemeth to me to prove that it extendeth to all the children of the faithful, because it is to them as such. But it followeth not that it must extend to them all alike, as to equal mercies, nor yet that the sin of Parents after may make no kind of forfeiture. But of this I have said more in my Christian Directory.

SECT. LXXXVII, to XCIV.

R. B. IN Psal. 102.28. It is a general pro­mise, the children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee. It is usual in the Old Testament to express Gods favour by temporal blessings, more than in the Gospel; but yet still they secure us of his fa­vour. As, I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, might secure Joshua more than us of temporal suc­cesses, and yet not more of Gods never failing fa­vour.

[Page 138] There is a stable promise to all Gods people in general that have children, Psal. 103.17. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to ever­lasting upon them that fear him, and his righte­ousness unto childrens children. And to be se­cured by promise of Gods mercy and righteousness is the state of none without the Church.

And if they were all to be kept out of the Church, I scarce think that Children would be called an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward, Psal. 127.3. nor the man hap­py that hath his quiver full of them. Nor would the sucking children be called as part of the so­lemn assembly to the humiliation, Joel 2.16. 2 Chron. 20.13.

There is a standing promise to all the just, Prov. 20.7. The just man walketh in his integrity, his children are blessed after him. There is no sort of men without the Church that is pronounced blessed in Scripture. A blessed people are Gods people, and those are the Church separated from the cursed world. One lower blessing will not de­nominate a man or society, a blessed man or so­ciety.

If it were a good argument then, Deut. 4.37. because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, then it is good still as to fa­vour in general. So Deut. 10.15. Psal. 69.36. Prov. 11.21. The seed of the righteous shall be delivered. In Psal. 37.26. there is a general promise to, or declaration of the righteous, that his seed is blessed, and then they are Church-members.

In Isa. 61.8, 9. it is promised I think of Go­spel [Page 139] times, I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, and their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their off-spring among the peo­ple: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath bles­sed. And cap. 62.12. They shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord: and thou shalt be called, sought out, a city not forsaken. Gospel promises then extend to [people and cities,] whereof Infants are a part. Isa. 65.23. they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them. This is plain, and full, and durable.

What is necessary to be said in answer to the common objections, as [that experience tells us all the seed of the righteous are not blessed] with the like, I suppose already done in my book of Baptism. All the seed of the righteous are bles­sed, though not all with that blessing which can­not be lost and cast away by themselves when they come to age.

Mr. T.'s Answers all contain the difficulty of discerning the fulfilling of these promises, and so denying that they infer visible Church-member­ship: and he saith [ That without the Church a person may be pronounced blessed, is apparent from Ishmaels blessing, Gen. 17.20. when he was ex­cluded the Covenant and cast out.]

Reply. He was excluded the Covenant of pecu­liarity, but not the common Covenant of Grace made with mankind in Adam and Noe: And the Church was larger than the Israelites Nation. The rest I leave to the Reader.

SECT. XCIV, XCV.

R. B. IF you say that the word [seed] doth not necessarily include Infants. I answer, In­fants are part of the seed of the righteous, yea all their seed are first Infants. If therefore God have made general promises as to age and person, who is he that dare limit it, without just proof that in­deed God hath limited it? Doth God say, that the seed of the righteous are not blessed till they come to age? If he pronounce the seed blessed, they must be blessed, when they are first such a seed: And if any one age might be more included than ano­ther, one would think it must be that wherein they are so meerly the seed of such as that they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief. For the seed of the righteous, as such, have a promised blessing: But the seed of the righteous turning themselves to unrighteous­ness, do turn from that blessing, and become ac­cursed.

I suppose I have already been more tedious than you expected: I will therefore add no more of these passages of Scripture, having said that which satisfieth me formerly to the same purpose, and having yet seen nothing that leaves me un­satisfied. And also because one text either con­taining such a Law or Covenant as you call for, or declaring to us that God did make such a Law or Covenant, is as good as a thousand in point of authority.

[Page 141] Mr. T. Mr. B. not holding children in the womb un­born to be visible Church-members, all this may be retort­ed: They are part of the seed of the righteous.

Reply. The whole seed (in the womb and born) are taken into this relation to God which im­plyeth his blessing on them as separated from the wicked, according to their capacity: An Infant in the womb is visibly separated to God, if you de­nominate visibility from the notoriety or visibili­ty of Gods promise that doth it: But the person is not visible to you, though sensible to the mo­ther. As Christ was the Head in the womb, so far Infants are members; the Parents then pri­vately devoting them to God: I told you before, the visibility of our state hath several gradations. To quibble thus on all Gods promises to the chil­dren of the faithful by questions and exceptions about embryo's, abortives, &c. is vanity.

SECT. XCVI, XCVII.

R. B. THE next Question that I spould 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 Laws un­repealable, while the subject remains: but other­wise the thing it self is capable of it. Only where a Promise or Law is but for a limited time, when the time is expired it ceaseth, and the ces­sation [Page 142] is as to the nulling of it, equal to a revo­cation or abrogation. I put in this question, lest you should hereafter change your mind and say, that indeed it is a law, or promise, or covenant, by which the right of Church-membership 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 only, when it will cease. The former is certainly false and intolerable. For, 1. They are promises and laws for the future, and therefore cease not immediately. 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promises and mutable Law-maker in the world, if his pro­mise and his laws cease as soon as they are made. Nay it makes them to be no laws or promises. 3. It was one standing law and promise that be­longed to the Nation of the Jews successively. And God did not make his promise anew to every In­fant that was made a Church-member, nor renew his law to every Parent to enter their Children in­to his Covenant by the sign of Circumcision. Were not the uncircumcised 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 Church-member in Infancy. If it be said that [Page 143] these promises were limited in the making of them, to a certain time when they were to cease, I say when that is proved we shall believe it, which I have not yet seen done.

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, John 11.52. And therefore he would oft 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 than 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.

Mr. T. — I conceived a Promise not in congruous sense repealable: For although a promise be a Law to the Pro­miser, [Page 144] 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.

Reply. I perceive we must dispute our first principles, as well as our Baptism. Reader, Gods promise in question is not a particular promise to some one person only, but his Recorded Instru­ment of Donation, or stablished written or conti­nued word, which is the sign of his will: It is the same thing which is called, the Premiant or Donative part of his Law, in one respect, and his Testament in another, and his Donation or Gift in another, and his Covenant as Conditional in another, and his Promise in another. As [He that believeth shall be saved] is the Rewarding or Giving part of a Law, and it is a Testament, a Covenant, a Promise, a Gift, all these. Mr. T. cannot see how this promise can be repealed: what, not an universal promising Law, or Cove­nant or Instrument? The question is not whether it ever was repealed, but whether it be repealea­ble, in congruous sense. Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth such and such hurtful creatures (a Fox, &c.) or that kil­leth an enemy in war, shall have such a reward▪ and repeale this Law or Promise when he seeth cause? I think the first Covenant ceased by mans sin, without repeal. But I cannot say that no promise to the Israelites was repealed, upon their sin! The non-performance of the condition depri­veth the party of the benefit while it is unrepeal­ed: but may not God thereupon repeal the Law [Page 145] or Covenant, and null the very offer to posterity? Is it not so as to the Jews policie and peculiari­ty? What pains is taken in the Epistle to the He­brews to prove the change of the Covenant as faulty in comparison of that which had better pro­mises? But if you will call it a meer cessation, all is one as to our question in hand.

SECT. XCVIII.

R. B. BEfore I end I shall be bold to put two or three Questions to you out of your last Letter. Quest. 1. Whether the circumcised servants of Israel sold away to another nation, and so separated from the Civil state of Israel, did eo nomine cease to be Church-members, though they forsook not God? And so of the Infants if they were sold in Infancy? If you affirm it, then prove it. If you deny it, then Infants might be Church-members that were not of the Common-wealth.

Mr. T. — None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Common-wealth.

Reply. But my Question was, when without for­saking God, they are forcibly separated from the Jewish policy and subjected to others, are they not members of the Church-universal still, though not of the Jews?

SECT. XCIX.

R.B. Quest. 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 Jews Church-members in Infancy? If no, then it was somewhat else than unbelief that broke them off.

Mr. T. They were broken off from the Jewish Church, not by unbelief, but by faith in Christ.

Reply. This is too short an answer to so great an evidence against you. The Infants of the Chri­stian Jews were the day before their Conversion members of the Jewish Church and of Gods uni­versal Church, of which the Jews were but a part: For as he that is a member of the City is a member of the Kingdom, and a part of a part is a part of the whole, so every member of the Jews Church was a member of Gods universal Church. Now, 1. The very Jews policy totally ceased not till the destruction of Jerusalem at least. 2. But if it had, I ask, was it no mercy to be a member both of the Jews Church and the universal? If not, the Jews lost nothing by being broken off? If yea, how did the Christians Chil­dren forfeit it? Was it better to be of no visible Church, than of the universal? The Jews were [Page 147] broken off by unbelief: you say Christians In­fants were put out of that and the whole visible Church by faith, or without unbelief.

SECT. C.

R. B. Quest. 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 Woolsey 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 nonel? Jews In­fants should be members and not Genties?

Mr. T. so answereth as before, and needeth no other Reply.

SECT. CI.

R. B. Quest. 4. IF unbelief brake them off, will not repentance graff them in? And so should every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-members?

Mr. T. Not their Infants —

Reply. Then it would be but a part of the peo­ple that would be graffed in.

SECT. CII.

R. B. Quest. 5. WAs not Christs Church be­fore his incarnation spiri­tual, and gathered in a spiritual way?

Mr. T. The invisible was; the visible Jewish Nation was not.

Reply. Not in comparison of the times of matu­rity: but the visible Jewish frame had the Father of spirits for Soveraign, and commanded spiritual duties, upon promises of spiritual blessings, even life Eternal.

SECT. CIII.

R. B. Quest. 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?

Mr. T. It was a more imperfect state in that and other regards.

Reply. I called for some proof that the Infant-membership was any part of the Church-imper­fection: If it be not a blemish, why must it be done away: what, was the Church the worse for Infants Rights?

SECT. CIV.

R. B. Quest. 7. IN what regard is the new frame bettered by casting out Infants which were in the old?

Mr. T. The Church is more spiri [...]ual —

Reply. What, doth Infants Relation detract from its spirituality? The adult have souls and bodies, and so have Infants? The adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves, as they make for their Infants? The adult blemish the Church with more carnal sins than Infants do? The Kingdom would be never the more spiritual nor excellent, if all Infants were disfranchised: Na­ture teacheth all Kingdoms on earth to take them for members, though but Infant-members.

SECT. CV.

R. B. Quest. 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 only that a more full and express revelation of Christ, requi­reth a more full express faith?

Mr. T. I know not what profession each Jew did make, or was to make.

[Page 150]Reply. I would you had been as cautelous and modest throughout. It is evident, that they were to profess consent to Gods Covenant, which those that denied, Asa would put to death.

SECT. CVI.

R. B. YOu may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the seven last Questions, and towards the middle that occa­sioneth the first. As for your motion of my ful­ly describing the priviledges of Church-members, I shall add no more at this time to what is alrea­dy elsewhere said of it.

Reply. Here Mr. T. chides me for wronging him by length; and being afraid the Reader will do so too I make haste.

SECT. CVII, CVIII.

R. B. ANd now I have gone thus far with you, in an enquiry into the truth, I entreat you be not too much offended with me, if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self. Quest. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of, to maintain that [Infants were visible Church-members not by any promise or precept, but by a transeunt fact, and that there was no law or ordinance de­termining it should be so, but only a fact of God, [Page 151] which is a transeunt thing not repealable?]

But either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant-making, or not: if you do, what a saying is it that Infants were made Church-members not by Covenant, but by a Covenant-making, not by a Law, but by a Law-making? If not, either you must say, that God makes du­ty without any law, and gives right to the bene­fit without any promise, or Covenant-grant as the cause; or else, that it is no benefit to have right to Church-membership, and no duty to enter into that relation, and to accept of that benefit, and to be devoted to God. Which ever of these ways you chuse (and one you must chuse, or change your opinion) hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous, or else more unbe­seeming a Divine, from a learned sober man of that profession? Pardon the high charge: Let the indifferent judge.

Reply. To this I find no answer worth the re­citing.

SECT. CIX.

R. B. Quest. 2. IS it not a great disgrace to all your followers, that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism, and be so confident that they are righter and wiser than others, and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these, which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a Law, Promise, or Covenant is? And do you not prove, [Page 152] that it is not because of the evidence of truth, but by your meer interest or confident words, these people are changed and held to your opinion? Do they know what [a transeunt fact is, that with­out Law or Covenant makes Church-members?] I say, do they know this? which no man that ever breathed till now, nor ever man will know again? And do you not proclaim them men of distempered consciences, that dare go on in such a Schism, on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion, and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain?]

Reply. I have nothing to say here, but Mr. T. seems very angry at this.

SECT. CX.

R. B. Quest. 3. IS it not a desperate underta­king, and dare you adven­ture on it, to justifie all the world before Christs incarnation except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God, to take him to be their God, and themselves to be his people? Yea, to justifie all Jews against this charge, that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church? And doth not he that saith there is no law, say there is no transgression?

Mr. T. He doth — Let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his Lie of Infant Church-mem­bership and Baptism by such Lies as these, and fear the ate of Liers.

[Page 153] Reply. Charge not your self, and I will not: I propose it to your consideration, whether the persons that solemnly take God for their God according to Gods Covenant, and are by his vi­sible word of Covenant, taken by God for his people, be not visible members of the Church uni­versal? And whether he that saith, There is no Law of God binding to do thus for his children, do not infer that they sin not by not doing it?

SECT. CXI.

R. B. Quest. 4. DAre you yet justifie also at the Bar of God, all the world since Christs incarnation from the guilt of sin, in not dedicating their children to Christ, and entring them into his Covenant as members of his Church? Dare you maintain that all the world is sinless in this respect?

Mr. T. I dare justifie the Non-baptizing them —

Reply. Here you make a modest stop. It seem­eth you dare not justifie men for not solemnly dedicating them in Covenant to God, and visi­bly engaging them to Christ as members visible of his Church.

SECT. CXII.

R. B. Quest. 5. HAve you well considered of the fruit of your ways ap­parent in England and Ireland at this day? Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not? And is it any wonder if posterity be left in con­troversie about the History of former times, when you can venture, even in these times when the persons are living in our company, to tell me that [you think I am mis-informed that they are Ana­baptists, and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized,] when of many that we know, and multitudes that we hear of, there are so few that were not before against In­fant Baptism, and the Seekers first such, and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down Infant Baptism; and it is one of the questions that they send to me, and others to answer, [how we can prove it by express Scripture without con­sequences, or else confess our selves false Pro­phets.

Reply. The answer to this I leave to the Rea­ders judgement.

SECT. CXIII.

R. B. Quest. 6. HAve you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred, of the perverting of so many souls, opening them such a gap to schism, contempt of the Ministry, and Apostasie, destroying a hopeful reformation that cost so dear: or weakning our hands in the work, and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn, enticing the Jesuites and Fri­ars to seem your proselytes, and list themselves among you, as the hopeful party to befriend their cause, hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane, and setling them again on their dregs, when many once began to shake! O what a Church might we have had, and were likely to have had? Had it not been for the Separatists and you? And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these? Have these things toucht your heart?

Reply. Mr. T. here is angry, and I wonder not; one stone he snatcheth up from Doct. Owens Appendix, and one from the Scotch Church, and Elders, and the Church at Kederminster, and the Worcestershire Association, which few before him I think have said much against.

SECT. CXIV.

R. B. Quest. 7. IS [a transeunt fact, making Infants Church-members with­out Law, Promise, or Covenant] a sufficient me­dium to encourage you to venture on all these hor­rid things, and run such hazards us you have done? Or is it possible that an humble sober man, and a tender conscience, durst make all this ha­vock, and stand out in it so many years consi­derately as you have done, and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence? When you should prove to us the revocation of Infants Church-membership, to tell us that they had it only by a transeunt fact? Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on? Sir, my conscience witnesseth, that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you, but some compassion on you (do not scorn it) and more on your poor followers; and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled.

Reply. Here Mr. T. is angry again, which is the summ.

SECT. CXV.

R. B. Quest. 8. CAn you prove that ever there was one age, or Church (particular) on earth since Ad [...]m till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptists rose, wherein In­fants [Page 157] were not de facto taken for members of the Church? If you can do it: Let us hear your proof.

Mr. T. I can; and for proof look back to Sect. 50, 51. and besides Constantine, Augustine, Naz. Hierom —

Reply. I can find no such thing there: what if the four men you name were baptized at age (the special reasons are told you elsewhere.) Doth that prove that others were not baptized in Infancy? Your 52 Sect. I think to examine in the end.

SECT. CXVI.

R. B. Quest. 9. CAn you bring us proof of any one Infant of true Church-members, that was not rightfully a Church-member himself from the creation till Christs days? or from the creation till this day? except the Ana­baptists, who reject the benefit; whose case (as I said before) I will not presume to determine?

Mr. T. I can, look back to Sect. 50, 51, 52, 57. —

Reply. I have done, and I find no such proof.

SECT. CXVII.

R. B. Quest. 10. SEeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the creation to this day (as far as any re­cords can lead us) is it likely that the Lord, and head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now [Page 158] to be actually made up of such subjects, as in regard of age be disallowed? And suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reasonable, modest and lawful undertaking, to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new fra­med Church, as to the age of the subjects? And is it not more modest and safe, to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in Hea­ven lived in, till the other day, as a few Ana­baptists with vile and sinful means, and misera­ble success, did attempt an alteration?

Mr. T. here denieth the suppositions: I leave the Reader to judge how truly.

SECT. CXVIII, CXIX.

R. B. SIR, pardon the weakness, and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother (though not as is meet) Rich. Baxter. May 14. 1655.

Sir, if you have any thing of moment to say, in reply to these, which you have not yet in your writings brought forth, I shall be willing to con­sider of it: But if you have not, I pray you tel me so in two words, and spare the rest of your pains (as for me) and trouble me no more with matters of this nature. For truly I have no suf­ficient vacancy from greater works. Yea, I am constrained to forbear much greater than these. R. B. After this he tells me, that whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley, in which I re­futed by many arguments Infants visible Church-membership, [Page 159] I must be either mutable or hypocriti­cal, if I deny such a Law and Ordinance which I took on me then to refute, and desires a Copy of that Sermon, that he may shew the sad mistakes and vanity of those my arguments.

Reply. Reader, to Mr. T.'s anger at these ten Questions I must say, 1. That the dolefulness of the Churches case constrained me in grief of heart to deal plainly with him.

2. But it was in a private letter, extorted by his importunity, and published to the world by himself and not by me; who confess that this plainness was too great for me to have used to him publickly: But secret admonition disparageth him not to others. It hath now been by himself about nineteen years divulged to the world, and I did not so much as trouble his patience by a word of answer, and little thought ever to do it: But Major Danvers his loud invitation hath drawn me to give them this Farewell.

THE Reader must here take notice that I am not here called to prove Infants Church-membership out of the New Testament, but to shew out of the Old that they were visible Church-members before by a Grant or Covenant, which Christ hath not repealed. The rest (out of the New-Testament) I have done long ago in my Treatise of Infant Church-membership and Ba­ptism, which Mr. T. is so much displeased at. And indeed I think that the proofs are plain, though many objections may be difficult to be answered, [Page 160] especially by those who have not throughly con­sidered the case. When I set together Christs own Infant membership, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding those that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation into his Church, and that they were broken off by unbelief, and consequently the seed of Believers not broken off from the Church universal, and that whole housholds are oft said to be baptized, and that Paul pronounceth Belie­vers children holy, and that Christ expresly, Matth. 28. commandeth his Ministers as much as in them lieth to Disciple all Nations baptizing, and it's prophesied that the Kingdoms of the world shall be made the Kingdoms of Christ, and there is no Nation or Kingdom on earth that In­fants are not members of; All this and much more seemeth to me a plain revelation of Gods will, that as he never had a Church which ex­cluded Infants, so he doth not now exclude them. And it is expresly said of the Jews that they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. where doubtless the Apostle in the name had respect to our being baptized into Christ, of which theirs was a typical Baptism; And it is not said in vain that they were [ all ba­ptized] including their Infants, but as part of the Analogie, as if he had said [ As we now are all baptized into Christ.]

These things seem to me a certain notificati­on of Gods will herein; which in the foresaid former Treatise I have fullier opened and im­proved. And should I stand to answer all the [Page 161] words that Mr. Tombes hath said against it, I should needlesly tire the Reader and my Self, and lose that time which I cannot spare.