Anti-pædobaptism, or, The third part being a full review of the dispute concerning infant baptism : in which the arguments for infant baptism from the covenant and initial seal, infants visible church membership, antiquity of infant baptism are refelled [sic] : and the writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal, Mr. Richard Baxter ... and others are examined, and many points about the covenants, and seals and other truths of weight are handled / by John Tombes.

SECT. LVI. That the People, and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews, were made vi∣sible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact, is made good against Mr: Bs. exceptions. (Book 56)

I Come next (saith Mr. B.) to the 6th. Qu. Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact, which without the causation of any promise or precept, did make the Israelites infants Churchmembers. This you affirm (if you would be understood;) whether this your ground of infants Churchmembership 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 pro∣mise, either you mean the act of legislation and promise making, or some other merely physical act. If the former, it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business: For you should not put things in com∣petition excluding the one, where they both must necessarily concur, the one standing in a subordination to the other. Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way ••hen by a transe∣unt 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 transient? If by writing is not the act transeunt? If by creation it self, the act is transeunt though the effect bee permament. 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 of it, any otherwise then as it is the making of that grant which shall so conferre 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 enti••leth the legatary to the legacy, but it is the rranseunt fact of the testator in making that will: or it is not the Soveraigns commission that au∣thorizeth a Judge, souldier, &c. but it is the transeunt fact of wri∣ting 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 this were to make you tantùm non un∣unreasonable. And yet I know not what to say to you, that is, how to understand you. For if you mean a mere physical transient fact, which is no such legislation or promise-making, then it is far more absurd then the former. For if it be not a signe 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 pro∣miser. A moral or civil effect must bee produced by a moral or civil action, and not by a mere physical action; which is unfit to produce such an alien effect, and can go no higher then it••s own kinde. What sense therefore I should put on your words, without making them ap∣pear unreasonable, even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse, I cannot tell. For to say, It is not a law but legi∣slation, is all one as to say, It is not the fundamentum, but the lay∣ing 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 us subject or terminus, is to confound physick and morals, and to speak the grossest absurdities; as to say that the tran∣sient fact of eating, drinking, going, building, &c. do adopt such an one to be your heir. I must needs think therefore, till you have bet∣ter cleared your self, that you have here quit your self as ill, and for∣saken and delivered up your Cause, as palpably as ever I knew man do, without an express confession that it is naught. When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmem∣bership needed no revocation, forsooth [because their Churchmem∣bership was not caused by a law, precept, promise or covenant, but

by a transeunt fact] then 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 spitting or blowing your nose, or by plowing and sowing can pro∣duce Kings and Emperours.

Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making, but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters, which was without promise or precept, that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith, or precept of accepting that of∣fered mercy, entering into Covenant, and re-ingaging them to God, which are the promise and precept Mr. B, derives their visible Church∣membership from. Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes, in that they were visibly a part of that people, who were Gods Church. So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite, 1. that God should make that people h••s Church, this he did by the transeunt fact described. 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that peo∣ple, this he did by their bringing into the world, ranking them among his people, so as that they were discernable by their birth, nursing, cir∣cumcision, habitation, genealogy, and such other signes, to bee part of that Church. Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visi∣bility in the relations, 1. of a part to the whole, 2. of a people that are Gods, that is 1. separated from other people, 2. called and taken or brought to God. These things are done by various acts, which I con∣ceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact. A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler, Metaphys. lib. 1. c. 22. tit. 13. Topic. c. 3. tit. 14. Stierius part. Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause, is that which truly flows into the effect, and nextly reacheth it by its activity. A Moral Cause, is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it, yet so behaves himself, that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise, reward or punishment. Such are causes applying the agent to the patient, counselling, commanding, perswading exhorting, instigating, meriting, permitting when they might and should binder, &c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it, formally a right to a benefit, or a benefit, though it may be so consecutively, or they may fol∣low on it. But it is a complex term, noting a state with a dou••le rela∣tion and imports a natural effect or term of action, as well, if not more then a moral, and is from physical as well as moral causes; and in in∣fants visible Churchmembership, I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause, as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such; though to the visible Churchmembership of the peo∣ple or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do con∣cur: which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him. As for his outcries of grossest absurdities, incoherent dreams, unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peo∣ples discourse, contemptible arguing, obtuse subtility, contradictions, pal∣pable forsaking and delivering up my Cause, generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose, with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick, I

pass by it as being of ill savour, hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings, and either shew me my errour, or discern his own.

Mr. B. goes on thus. In consideration of the 7th. Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient 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 re∣pealeable 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. Answ. I do.

1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts, and yet not eternal.

Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts (of whom I spake) are eternal.

We use, saith he, to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent, and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum. Answ. So do I.

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

Answ. Yea and immanent too.

But use your sence as long as we understand it.

Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term, if you under∣stand it, if not I must alter it.

2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely [past] actions which you call [transe∣unt] 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 Churchmembers till the end of those years.

Answ. It doth but seem so: the truth is, in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year, and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done, Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end, and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished, but that there was an addition till that people came to thei•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or full stature, in which re∣spect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact, which I hope when he understands it, Mr. B. will give me leave to do.

3. Saith he▪ 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 trasient, or the act as it is in patien••e: Whether the law were transeunt which was made by a transeunt fact? and whether the mo∣ral action of that law were permanent or transient? it being most certainly such a moral act that must produce a title, or constitute a duty. Gods wri∣ting 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 ver∣bal laws, that have no real permanent sign: and yet the law may be per∣manent, and the obligation permanent, because the sign may have a per∣manency in esse cognito, and so the signifying vertue may remain by the help of memory, though the word did vanish in the speaking.

Answ. The question between us is, Whether the infants of the Jews were made visible Churchmembers by a promise of God to be the God of believers and their seed, and a precept obliging the parents to accept

of this mercy offered for their children, and to enter them into Cove∣nant; or by the transeunt fact I describe. The questions which Mr. B. here sets down, so far as I understand them, are no questions between us: and therefore this exception is but roving from the matter in hand.

2. Saith he, When you come to point out this transient fact individu∣ally, you say [it is Gods taking the whole people of the Jews for his peo∣ple,] 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 on [Act,] as to contain the acts (rather then the facts) of many genera∣tions.

Answ. Though I think in use there is some difference, that act is applied to the particular actions, fact to them as they amount to some thing brought to pass by them; yet if there were no such difference, me thinks if Mr. B. had not been minded to multiply exceptions un∣necessarily, he might have allowed me to use a term (which in Disputes is frequent) for my purpose especially sith he understands it.

2. Saith he, 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 yo••r mind, and say [the Churchmembership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call, and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God. Exod. 10.4.] But sure that was long before the setling their inheritance. Your fact according to your last account was about 430 yeares in doing; but according to your first opinion, it was about 470 years long.

Answ. In my first and last account there is no change of my mind. I did conceive, that the taking the whole people of the Jews for his peo∣ple was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4. as Christ said It is finished, John 19.30. and yet more was to be done, because the chief or hardest thing then was done which would draw after it all the rest. As after the great battel at Arbella, Alexanders conquest might be said to be finished, though more were after to be done. I never meant to limit the fact to the time of their bringing out of Aegypt to God, but included all other additionals, though it were the main, and which brought along with it the rest.

3. Saith Mr. B. If it were one individual fact of about 470 years long that made infants Churchmembers, then they could not be Churchmem∣bers till that fact was past: For the effect is not before the cause, or causa∣lity of the efficient; the relation cannot be before the fundamentum be laid: and it seems this long fact was the laying of the fundamentum: But the consequent is certainly false; for infants were Churchmembers before the end or compleating of your long fact: For they were Churchmem∣bers (you'l grant) when Ishmael and Isaac were circumcised. Ergo, it

was not this long fact that made them Churchmembers.

Answ. I said I termed Gods taking the people of the Jews a fact, as a collective term, comprehensive of the many particular acts in ma∣ny generations whereby he did accomplish it. By which it may easily be perceived, that I did not make the fact an individual action, for I called it many acts, nor did mean that the Churchmembership was not till all the acts were past, but that it was accomplished by them, that is, they were brought to full stature and growth as a formed people and Com∣monwealth: As we say a child is a man accomplished when he is brought to the years of a man, and yet he is a man before. And I answer to Mr. Bs. argument taken from my words; that when I drew out the fact so long, and said, by it the infants were visible Churchmembers as a part of the Congregation of Israel, my meaning was, that respectively as the Congregation of Israel were made a Church by that fact, so were the infants members. By the call out of Ur, whereby God separated Abra∣ham and his house from other people, the Congregation of Israel began to be Gods Church, and if there had been infants they had been visible Churchmembers; but they were not a compleated Church till they were brought out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4. nor infants members of a Church compleated till then when they were become a great nation, and were formed into a Theocratical Commonwealth. And being thus rightly understood (as my words imported) I said nothing which infers the absurdity of putting the effect afore the case, nor the put∣ting off infants visible Churchmembership till the end of 470 years.

4. Saith he, If you mean that it was not the whole, but some part of this long fact that actually made infants Churchmembers, then you would have assigned that part, when that was the thing desired, and which you pre∣tended exactly to perform; or at least you would not have told us it com∣prehended all these acts.

Answ. I did exactly tell Mr. B. in my Letter, it began with the call of Abraham out of Ur; and when I told him that the fact comprehended all those acts, yet I added for explication, [whereby it was accomplish∣ed or compleated.]

5. Saith he, And if each particular act did make infants Church-members, or lay a sufficient ground of it, then it seems that it was done be∣fore the institution of Circumcision. For Gods calling Abraham out of Ur was before it. So that the children born in his house must be Churchmembers 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 Churchmember many years before Circumcision.

Answ. I grant all this,

6. Saith he, If this be your meaning, I pray you be so just and impar∣tial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of infants Churchmem∣bership before Abrahams days, if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur.

Answ. I shall.

7. Saith he, If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any infants Churchmembers, then it must be any

one; for you no more assign it to one of them then to another, (onely say [chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt:] But surely some of these acts particularly ••annot do it, As the leading to Padan Aram, the removal to Canaan, to Aegypt, placing, preserving ther••, setling their Army, &c. Did any one of these make infants to become Churchmembers?

Answ. No: But I did assign it to one of them more then to ano∣ther, to wit, the beginning to Abrams call, the accomplishing to the bringing of them out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4

8. Saith he, 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 Churchmembership, then 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 Churchmembers? Nay, how strange is it, that the removing of Churchmembers, and such as had been infant Churchmembers, as Ishmael, Keturahs children, Esau, must cause infant Churchmembership? Sure it was no cause of their own. Keturahs children were Churchmembers in in∣fancy: 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 onely the taking that people, but also the removal from that people that maketh Churchmembers, even the removed as well as the taken, both which are alike absurd.

Answ. 1. I mean not as Mr. B. supposeth I might. 2. The setling of the Army had remotely causation of infants Churchmembership, for by it the Israelites were a well formed Congregation, Church, or Com∣monwealth, and by which the infants were a part, which is their Church∣membership. 3. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling of the Church, as that the Antiprelatists congregations had been either none, or much oppressed, i•• they had not broken the force of the opposite party. Nor dare I be so unthankfull to God, or them, as not to acknowledge the great mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy there∣by, however Mr. B. fret at our liberty, and jibe at the instruments. 4. The leading to Padan Aram, removal to Aegypt, were acts of provi∣dence wherby Jacobs house were encreased and preserved, which I con∣ceive were some of those acts whereby he made them a people to himself. 5. Ishmaels, Keturahs children's, Esau's removal, were some acts where∣by the congregation of Israel became Gods severed, or a peculiar peo∣ple. 6. Keturahs children were visible Churchmembers while they were part of Abrahams house, called after the people of the Jews, by Gods taking of the people of the Jews, and consequently them as a part; and yet the removal of them was after one act whereby the people of the

Jews were made to God a severed people from them; and consequently their infants Churchmembers. Distinguish the times and the different state of things and intentions of God in his providences, and these seem∣ing incoherences will be found consistent.

9. Saith he,

And I pray you tell me yet a little better, how an act can make a man a Churchmember 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 Churchmembers that were born in Aegypt, and were Churchmembers before? Or how could it be any part of the cause? Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Churchmember when he was in the basket on the waters? And when you answer this, you may do well to go a little f••r••her, and tell me, how such an act concurreth to make him an infant Church∣member that was dead an hunded 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 Ish∣mael, or Esau, or Isaac, or Jacob Churchmembers?

Answ. The infants of Israel were Churchmembers in that they were a part of the congregation or people af Israel, which was a fluent body, and was taken to be Gods Church by a succession of acts, where∣of some were causes which began, some continued, some compleated, and the several acts made the Churchmembers of that age, yet all by vertue of the first call of Abraham, whereby God declared his intention to make his house a Nation, and his Church, first more obscurely, then more clearly. The bringing out of Aegypt tended to make the Israelites a severed people, and consequently all that were Churchmembers were by that act such; the setling of the Army, inheritance, Covenant at Mount Sinai, tended to make them a well formed people, and to the ac∣complishment of the taking the Jews to be Gods people, and conse∣quently the infan••s to be Churchmembers which came after them. Which if so understood, there is nothing in my conceit which infers the making that a cause which is after the effect.

10. Saith Mr. B.

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 onely? 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?

Answ. 1. These acts are knit together into one fact by the unity of end designed and work accomplished, as the many acts of several ages did make one fact, of which the Poet speaks, Tantae molis erat Ro∣manam condere gentem, to raise the Roman Empire. 2. You might, if God had so contrived it, and brought the thing to pass in that time which he did in a longer. 3. I may make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christs towards the Hebrews, one fact of making the Jews his people, and assign it to this office rightly, onely using the word fact or

making, as it comprehends not onely the beginning, and increasing, and compleating of that people; but also the continuation, recovery from captivity, and preservation of that people.

11. Saith Mr. B.

You say that you call this fact [transeunt] be∣cause it's [past,] (and so till it's [past] it seems Isaac and Jacob that were dead before; are no Churchmembers;) I would then fain know whether it be this same transeunt fact, or some other, that makes infants Churchmembers 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 Cove∣nant which doth the deed? If it be a new transeunt fact that must make infants Churchmembers after the compleating of this (the set∣ling their inheritances;) then I pray you let me know, whether it be one fact exercised on the whole nation in gross, or must it be a fact up∣on every infant member individually? If on the nation, remember to tell us what it was; and do not onely tell us the cause of the member∣ship 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 s••uare and full, and be sure to assign us no other kind of fact, then what you will prove to have been so frequently repeated in every age, and so fully extensive to every in∣fant among the Jews, as that it have no gaps but may make all mem∣bers that were so in each age. And remember, that it is no law, pre∣cept, promise, or covenant that you must assign for the cause; for that's it you are engaged against: but a constant succession of tran∣seunt 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 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 m••ch 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.

Answ. I call the whole transeunt fact past, because it consists of many transeunt acts, which are past being done: But I do not limit the being of Churchmembers to the entire transeunt fact, as if none were Churchmembers till each act was past which I set down; but the accom∣plishing or compleating the Congregation of Israel to either all or the chief of the later acts. That which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmem∣bers, was the transeunt fact or acts of Gods providence in their age, whereby they became to be part of Abrahams house, which God by his call of Abram, setting up his worship in it, and other ways had made his Church. The same transeunt fact in kind, though not individual, which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmembers in their age, made infants visible Churchmembers in the several ages till Christs time; to wit, the continuance of the Jews to be Gods people, in the continuing his ordi∣nances, laws, worship, &c. among them: And each infant was made a visible Churchmember by such transeunt fact in each age renewed and

repeated, by which the infant was made and known to be a part of that people, which what it is hath been often before said, and shewed not to be by such Covenant and precept as Mr. B. asserts. All which was plain∣ly expressed in my Letter, (and is such work as I need not be ashamed of,) without any new political Doctrine or Law, as Mr. B. imagines, it being cleared by the History of the Bible, and other Histories which set down this fact of God: And if Mr. B. or any Lawyer gainsay this, they gainsay the plain narration of the Bible. His foolish exclamati∣ons I let pass, as shewing nothing but his own inconsiderateness and vanity. That many of my opinion are against the Lawyers, is more then I know; they know well that I honour their profession and study, though I do no whit flatter them in their injurious and covetous practi∣ses: Nor do I doubt but conscionable and understanding Lawyers will be for me upon my grounds, as soon as other men, if they peruse my writings with love to the truth; and so would all godly learned Divines also, if it were not for prejudice, and some other partial affection. But I must attend on Mr. B.

12. Saith he,

But all this yet is but a light velitation: The prin∣cipal thing that I would enquire into, is, what your great compre∣hensive 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 [ta∣king] 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 indi∣vidual 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 Sodome; or as the Apocry∣phal Author mentions of Habakkuk, that was taken by the hair of the head, and carried by the Angel into another countrey, to bring Daniel a mess of pottage? If God must by a physical apprehension take hold of them that he makes Churchmembers, we shall be at a loss for our proof of their Churchmembership. But I cannot imagine that this is your sence. But what is it then? Is it a physical action though a mo∣ral causation of some physical effect? That it cannot be: For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire a••••er. 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, Pro∣mise, 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 pro∣duct 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 some∣what to be done, or somewhat to be given;) 2. or a dueness of some∣thing 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 penal Law, or voluntary agree∣ment: 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 peo∣ple. The act which makes each member, is of the same nature with that which makes the society. The relation then essentially containe••h 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 powerfull and gracious Soveraign to such Subjects, and from such a Head to his Members: As also a right to to my station in the Body, and to the inseparable benefits thereof. 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ, acknowled∣ged and promised actually or virtually, really or reputatively. Now for the first, how can God be related to me as my God, or Christ as my Saviour, and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings, by any other way then 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 mo∣ral 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 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, and so is the stipulator, and we the pro∣misers in the latter part of the action: it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant, though indeed the word [Covenant] frequent∣ly 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 be∣nefit to the governed, to promote the ends of government, and obli∣ging to duty thereby, so it partaketh of the nature of a law. The com∣monest 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 peo∣ple] 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 Churchmembership, 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 obliga∣tion. And thus by a mutual contract, Covenant or consent (whereof

our part is first required by a law,) is the relation of Churchmem∣bership contracted. Now to lay by and deny all this, and give us the general naked name of [taking for Gods people,] is meerly delu∣sory, seeing that [taking] means this which you exclude, or it means nothing that's true and reasonable. And therefore tell us better what it means.

Answ. All before being but a velitation or light skirmish, I looked here for some great battel: But I find it nothing but a rallying together the forces scattered before, there being not one thing I know of in this passage, but what was set down before, and is answered. I have di∣stinctly shewed how moral and physical acts concur to the visible Churchmembership of the people, of which infants are a part, and na∣tural to that visible Churchmembership which the Jews infants had, and what they were, both in my Letter, and in this answer. What M. B. replies, is vain. 1. It is not true that the effect in question is a moral, it is at least in infants meerly a physical effect; their Churchmembership is not by any act which reacheth not to the effect. 2. The taking is of individual p••rsons existent. 3. By many particular acts, yet in a good sence before given, sum∣med up into one transeunt fact. 4. The physical acts are none of those M. B. frivolously imagines, but such as are mentioned in the Scripture, and declared in my Letter 5. It is not true that a meer physical taking cannot produce a moral effect: For supposing the Spirit should inspire faith im∣mediately without any preaching, the eff••ct would be moral, though produced by a meer physical taking or act. 6. The transeunt fact I set down doth not exclude, but did expresly include in my Letter both Co∣venants single and mutual, and laws, and precepts; yet (as I have said before) it doth exclude that promise of Mr. Bs. of Gods being a God to believers and their seed, and a precept of believing or accepting this for their children, which confer the benefit of visible Churchmember∣ship. Yea, it is fully proved before, that if there were such a promise and precept, yet these would not actually make infants visible Church∣members. 7. It is not true that the relation of visible Churchmembership essentially containeth a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men, Christs headship, and that favour, protection, provision, and other blessings, which are due from such a powerful and gracious Soveraign to such subjects, and from such a head to his members. For (to omit the unfi••ness of the expression of [right to the great benefits of Gods so∣veraignty over men] which contains these two fond conceits. 1. That great benefits are included in Gods soveraignty over men, whereas the soveraignty of God includes not any benefit but his own greatness, he is soveraign over the reprobate men and Angels as well as the elect, and yet they have no benefit, yea his soveraignty is shewed in their repro∣bation as well as the election of the other. 2. That visible Churchmem∣bers have a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men, whereas what benefit soever it be yet right is not to us by visible Church∣membership) it is most false that that relation either constitutivè or consecutivè, doth essentially contain that right. For neither doth the term formally import any right at all, but a manner of being or state

with relation as I have before distinctly declared; nor doth that right inseparably accrue to such visible Churchmembers. There are and may be visible Churchmembers, who have not that right; and there are who have that right, and are not visible Churchmembers. 8. Nor is it true that the relation essentially includeth a right to the members station, and to the inseparable benefits thereof. For though the station in the body be included, yet not a right to it, yea the actual station is oft times without right, which I think is sufficiently proved by Mr. B. himself in his dispute against Mr. Blake Sect. 39. asserting a dogmatical faith entitling to baptism. 9. That though visible membership bee by Gods gift, and this is to be by signification of Gods will, yet it is not necessa∣ry it should be by any promise or declaration which may be termed mo∣ral or political, sith the event it self is a signification of Gods will and of his gift. 10. That if Churchmembership be contracted by a mutual consent and covenant as Mr. B. sets down, 1. onely the elect can be visi∣ble Churchmembers, for to them onely God hath covenanted to be their God, or Christ their Saviour. 2. Infants are not visible Churchmem∣bers, for they neither Covenant, nor by any intimation in Scripture is it shewed or can bee, that the parents or others obedience to God in Christ acknowledged or promised, is virtually or reputatively by any law of God taken for the infants Covenant or consent. Lastly, this law which Mr. B. here sets down concerning the duty of the parents, is not that law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership, which Mr. B. asserts to be unrepealed For the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership is not a precept of what another shall do, but what they shall have, not of what in duty a person is bound to, but of what God doth give and grant. And therefore all this tedious discourse of Mr. B. is but delusory, sith instead of a law and ordinance determining that infants shall be visible Churchmembers, he assignes another thing a pre∣cept of a duty, and thinks if I prove not it repealed▪ I prove not the law and ordinance of another thing repealed.

Mr B. adds. 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 a••••ions whereby he rescued them from the Egyptian 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 Churchmembers before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking.

Answ. The text expresseth that act of God whereby hee took the Jews for his people, and consequently whereby he founded the relation of Churchmembers, and if this act were a natural act, then it follows (contrary to Mr. Bs. conceits) that a natural act may be it by which God takes a people to him, which is the Scripture phrase whereby is sig∣nified his making them his Church. If they were his people before, and all their infants Churchmembers, yet they might be made his people by repeated, continued, or new acts making or taking, noting a beginning or continuance or completing of the estate they had formerly. If they

were by vertue of a former Covenant-taking, yet I think Mr. B. cannot shew before that time a mutual Covenant-taking, such as he said before the relation of Churchmembership is contracted by.

He adds. As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separa∣tion 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 Churchmembers, and not the last: the last was onely 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 Egyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelites, and got with them through the Red Sea, do you think he had been therefore a Churchmember? Suppose God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed, but onely taken them out of Chal∣dea into Canaan, and thence into Egypt, and thence into the Wilderness, and thence into Canaan again: Do you think this much had made them Church-members? Then if the Turks conquer Greece, or the Tartarians conquer China, they are become Churchmembers, because this seems as great a tem∣poral prosperity at least. And I think it••s past doubt, that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom, and the Israelites in Egypt before they were brought out, as truly as after.

Answ. I grant that they were, though not so completed, when they had not liberty to sacrifice to God, nor to keep any feast, and perform o∣ther worship to God as when they were brought out, unto which the texts refer the severing of the Israelites from other people that they should be Gods, although I did not in my Letter restrain it to that local sepa∣ration (which yet the Scripture with me chiefly refers it to) but also to the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, gi∣ving them Laws, setling their Priesthood, Tabernacle, Army, Govern∣ment, inheritance. If the Turks or Tartars had such a local separation as I describe, they had been Churchmembers. The Egyptians that came out of Egypt with the Israelites, were Churchmembers with the Israelites they becomming Proselytes. If God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed, but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Ca∣naan, and withall made known his will concerning his grace in Christ, given them Lawes, and set up his worship among them, they had been Churchmembers. According to Mr. Bs. own arguings, the promise or Covenant with Abraham and his seed made them not Churchmembers, for they were Churchmembers before. The Covenant Gen. 17. was not a mutual Covenant, which is that by which according to Mr. B. visible Churchmembership is contracted. The texts that I allege, do suffici∣ently prove the people of Israel were taken to be Gods people by such a transeunt fact as I describe, and consequently the infants visible Church-members, as part of that people, without the promise to believers and their seed to bee their God, on condition of the parents accepting the mercy offered, and re-engaging them to God, which Mr. B makes the sole efficient of their holiness or visible Churchmembership, as is shewed before. He proceeds.

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 farther enquire anon, whether they con∣tain any Covenant or promise.

Answ. They do each of them plainly shew the beginning of the taking of the Hebrews for Gods people, by severing them from Ido∣laters, and forming them into a Chruch, and consequently of the Churchmembership which infants had in that people or nation. For the texts do all expresly tell how God severed Abram from the Chaldees, how he made his house his Church, promising to encrease and to settle it, and neither Moses, nor the Levites, nor Stephan, do go higher in the nar∣ration of Gods calling of the Hebrews to be his people And I think it safest to go no higher then the Scripture. What Mr. B. adds after, shall have answer in its place.

He adds. So Exod. 19.4, 5. hath no word that gives the least intima∣tion that God by that act of taking them out of Egypt, did make Israel a Church, or the infants or any others, members of it: But onely that by ful∣filling 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. Nehem. 1.10. I will not believe yet, but that you believe your self, that the Israelites and their infants were as truly Churchmembers before, as after their deliverance out of Egypt. And mee thinks the texts you cite might put it out of doubt. What if God say, Hos. 11.1. [When Israel was a childe I loved him, and called my Son out of Egypt.] Is it easie hence to prove, that calling him out of Egypt 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 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 Egypt, 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 Churchmembers: 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 palpa∣ble non sense or absurdities, then let them still follow you in the dark; for I expect not that reason should recover them.

Answ. My conceits were and are still, that infants were onely visi∣ble Churchmembers in the Church of the Hebrews or Congregation of Israel, and that they were such not apart by themselves, but as they were a part of that people which God took for his Church, which made a peculiar Commonwealth and Chureh to God consisting of the same persons. This God did not by a promise to be God to the faithful and their seed as the sole efficient, and a precept of the parents to accept of this offered mercy, and to dedicate them, and re-engage them to God, as Mr. B. conceives, but by a transeunt fact containing many acts of Gods providence whereby they were severed from other people, and

appropriate to God. The prime act of Gods providence whereby God brought this to pass, was Gods calling of Abram out of U••, whereby he severed them from idolaters, and by degrees establ••shed his worship in Abrahams house, upon which followed a long tract of providences, which I mentioned as tending to the same end: And this calling of A∣bram I refer the beginning of that people and Church to, and I think I follow therein the Scriptures. The other chief act of providence was Gods calling of Israel out of Egypt, wherein I comprehend all the acts mentioned by me in my Letter which followed, by which I said it was completed, and to that end I alleged many (as I conc••i••e) express texts, not to prove that they then began to be Gods people (as Mr. B. contrary to my plain words insinuates) but to prove that then they were completed, that is, completely severed from other people▪ and for∣med into a Church or Commonwealth, with Lawes, distribution of Offices, order, and other things requisite thereunto, which they had not before. And thus I interpret their bringing to God, Exod. 19.4. the bringing them up out of the land of Egypt to bee their God Levit. 11.45. their redeeming to bee his people Nehem. 1.10. their calling out of Egypt Hos. 11.1. That is, from a miserable state among idolatrous oppressors, to be a people of themselves in a complete state of liberty under Gods rule, which I conceive described by Ezech. ch. 16. under the simili∣tude of a childe cast out, relieved and educated. If Mr. B. can shew any non-sense, or absurdity herein, it is surely that which the plain Scripture affords, or else I am in a dream; and if Mr. B. bee awake, I think hee may espie non-sense and absurdity manifold in his conceit of visible Churchmembership as a right to a benefit, of such a Covenant, and Condition, and Precept, which hee imagines to confer it. I am willing Mr. Bs. Doctrine and mine bee compared, though I lay so little weight on this point, that I think if I bee mis∣taken, neither is Mr. Bs. cause gained, nor mine lost. I would have none follow me in the dark, nor would I have men befooled by Mr. Bs. misrepresentations of me, and others, much less by his frivolous Rhetorick, in which hee discovers a great deal of pre∣judice, rashness, confidence, and intemperate zeal, with which I think him so drunken, that I doubt whether reason will recover him, till some providence of God bring him to see his folly; which I think will much appear in that which followes, on which never∣theless I conceive hee builds the main or whole of his Cause of In∣fants visible Churchmembership.