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. LXVI. Mr. Bs. 9th, 10th, 11. Arg. concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th, 15th, 16th, Chapters part. 1. of Bapt. to prove their visible Churchmembership, are answered. (Book 66)

CHap. 14. saith Mr. B. my 9th. arg. is this: If the beli••ving Jews children (and cons••quently the parents in point of comfort) be not in a worse condition since Christ, then they were before, then their children ought still to be Churchmembers. (And consequently the gift and ordinance is not repealed.) But certainly the believing Jewes children (and consequently the parents in point of comfort) are not in a worse condition since Christ then they were before: Therefore their children ought still to bee Churchmembers. The antecedent I scarce take him for a Christian that will deny. Christ did not come to make believers or their children miserable, or to undo them, or to bring them into a worse condition. This were to make Christ a de∣stroyer, and not a Saviour. Hee that came not to destroy mens lives but to save them, came not destroy mens happiness but to recover them. He that would not accuse the adulterous woman, will not cast out all infants without accusation. 2. The consequence a man would think should be out of doubt: If it be not, I prove it thus: it is a far worse condition to be out of the visible Church then to be in it: there∣fore if the believing Jews children be cast out of the Church then they are in a far worse condition then they were before: (and so Christ and faith should do them a mischief, which were blasphemy to i∣magine.)

Answ. If Mr. B. had set down, as I desired him in my Letter, what the benefit, or priviledge is of infant visible Churchmembership which he asserts unrepealed, and what infants lose by not being in the Christian Church visible, the Reader with my self might have considered this argument more exactly: But till that be done, no man can exactly tell how to compare their former and later conditions wherein they are better or worse, nor how from the equall goodness of their condition their Churchmembership is inferred. And for my part, I think such kind of arguings as these, to infer things that onely are by Divine in∣stitution,

are meer devices of mens wit, and Mr. B. in using them (as indeed they are his onely strength he hath in this point, for all the texts hee brings are quite from the matter, and some so manifestly imperti∣nent, that a good text man would bee ashamed ever to produce them as hee doth) doth but shew that he rests more on popular arguments which moves mens affections then Scripture proofs, though most deceitfully like an Impostor he entitle his Book, Plain Scripture proof of infants Churchmembership and Baptism, when there is not a text that is plain for it, scarce any that hath any shew of it. But lest this argu∣ment be thought unanswerable, I shall examine it. A worse or a bet∣ter condition are comparative terms, and as Aristotle saith in his Ca∣teg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nothing is said to bee great or small by it self, but as compared with another, so nothing is better or worse by it self, but as compared with another. It is necessary then that we examine the e∣state of b••lieving Jewes children before and since Christs comming: The estate of the believing Jewes children before Christ, may be con∣ceived to bee either in actual possessions or in promises. In actual pos∣sessions they had this priviledge, that they were a part of that nation which was then Gods people, separated from other people by cir∣cumcision, lawes, temple, inheritance in Canaan, priesthood, and the children of the priests had this priviledge, that the males were to suc∣ceed in the priesthood, and their children to be nourished of the tithes, offerings, first fruits, the poor by a tithe and other wayes. The promises were either of special priviledge, as that Christ should come out of that nation, or of temporal blessings, as that while they kept Gods laws they should dwell in Canaan and prosper there, or of saving blessings. These did belong onely to some believing Hebrews children, not to all, to Isaac not to Ishmael, to Jacob not to Esau, the rest were onely temporal benefits, and were accompanied with a yoke of lawes and rites intollerable. The children of believing Jewes condition since Christ, is either in respect of saving blessings, and so it is either the same which was before, or better in respect of the easier way of com∣ming to the knowledge of Christ, in respect of the temporals. So it is in some respect worse, they are liable more to persecution with their parents, in some respects better, in that they with th••ir parents a••e exempt from the legal bon••age, which they and their parents as pa•••• of that nation o•• visible Church were obnoxious to. So that in some sense the antecedent or minor is granted, in some sense denied, with∣out fear of forfeiting my Christianity.

And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer, Christ did come to make Jew be∣lievers children in some respect, that is, of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable, or under persecution, and so in a worse conditi∣on, and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness, but a Savi∣our of them, this worse condition working for their eternal good. Nor is it any absurdity to say, he that would not accuse the adulterous woman, would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation, sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraign∣ty as a Rector, not of punitive justice as a Judge.

But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also, and to his proof I give the same answer, which he thus exagitates.

Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth? I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say (before many thousand witnesses I think) and that is this, He saith plainly, That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now, then in it then. Which •• thought a Christian could scarse have believed. 1. Are all those glorious things spo∣ken of the City of God, and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it?

Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth, which if there had been ma∣ny more witnesses, I should sti••l avouch as part of my faith, and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chri••••ian, and not a Jew, hee should believe it too. For were not the Jews infan••s by their visible Churchmember∣ship bound to be circumcised, and to keep Moses Law? was not thi•• an heavie and intollerable yoke? I•• it not a mercy to be freed from it? What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infan••s of believing Jews now lose, by not being Christian visible Churchmembers? I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing, which doth not a•• well come to an infant of a believer unbaptiz••d, or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized, or admitted, or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine, which is not by his own. Dare he say, that the promises of savi••g grace, or protection, or other blessings, are not belonging to them because unbaptized, not admitted visible Churchmembers? If he dare not, let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian, and tragically to represent it as cruel, and uncomfortable to parents, and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth, but like an Oratour raise passion with∣out judgement, and end••avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious, which course will at last redound to his shame, if it do not pierce his conscie••ce. I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates, that it is now better to be out of any Church then it, but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now, then to be in it then, meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then. And for that passage, that glorious things are spoken of the City of God, to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged; For that speech is meant of Jerusalem, or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob, Psal. 87.1, 2, 3. not of all the Jewish Church, and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25. Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children, which proves my position.

Mr. B. adds. 2. Then the Gentiles, Pagans infants now, are happier then the Jews were then; for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church?

Answ. It follows not from my position, which was of Christian be∣lievers infants with those promises and probabilities they have, and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have, are happier then the Jews were then.

But, saith he, I were best to argue it a little further. 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth him∣self to be their God, and taketh them to be his peculiar people, then to be out of that Covenant, then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then, then to be out of that and this too: But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God, then out of it: Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither. The antecedent is undeniable▪ The consequence is clear in these two conclusions; 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God: This I proved, Deut. 29.11, 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text, you may see in the end. 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance, or mercy answerable. If there be, let some body shew it: which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon, that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership.

Answ. If the Covenant be meant (as I have proved before, sect. 64. it is) of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Ca∣naan if they kept the law of Moses, then the antecedent is not undenia∣ble; but it is most true, that the condition of believers and their chil∣dren now with the exhibition of Christ, the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him, is bet••er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it. But the consequence was also denied, because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace: And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace, neither of his con∣clusions are true; nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11, 12. For if it were true, that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant, yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God. Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God, which they might do, and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God, si••h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant, but to them that keep it; yea, if it were that they were in that covenant, yet that cove∣nant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws, it being made conditionally, and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God. Yea, if it were as Mr. B. would have it, that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace; yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith, and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church, or to none but those who are believers, who were not all the inchurched Jews. Nor is the second conclusion true; there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who are now no visible churchmembers as was then, to the elect now as was then, to whom alone it was made then and now. And as for mercy an∣swerable to visible churchmembership of infants, enough is said here, Sect. 64.

Mr. B. adds. 4. I argue from Rom. 3.1. What advantage hath the Jew, and what profit the circumcision? much every way, &c. If the Jew circumcised inchurched infants had much advantage every way, and thos••

without the Church have none; then it is better be in their Church then without the Church: But the former is plain in the Text; therefore the later is certain.

Answ. The advantage the Jew had, was when they were the peo∣ple of God above them who were heathen infidels, not above Christian believers: Now it is true, that it was better to be in their Church, then to be without the Church, as heathen infidels and their children were, But this doth not prove what is to be proved, that the condition of Jews infants in their Church visible, is better then of Christian believers in∣fants now no visible Churchmembers. Nevertheless the speech of the Apostle is not meant of Jew infants; for the instance he gives of com∣mitting to them the Oracles of God, is not true of the infants; and there∣fore it is denied, that Mr. Bs. antecedent is plain in the text in respect of the forepart of it: And it is false also, that the infants of Christians, though not Christian visible churchmembership, have no such advan∣tage as the Jews had; For in this thing the advantage of the Christians infant is more then of the Jews, sith the Scriptures being now more common and better cleared, they may sooner know them then the Jews infants could

5. Saith he, Again from Rom. 9.4. I argue thus: If then to the Iews pertained the adoption, the covenants, the promises, &c. but no such thing to them without the Church; then it is worse to be out of the Church, then to be in it as they were: But the former is the words of the Holy Ghost; therefore the consequent is certain.

Answ. The consequence is denied. For if this were true, it would as well prove it to have been a better condition to be in the visible Church Jewish then, then to be in the Christian Church visible now. For now those things expressed Rom. 9.4, 5. belong not to them who are in the visible Church Christian; yea, it is now Christ is come the benefit of the Church to be freed from them, I mean some of them, as the services which were in sacrifices, &c. the glory which was the Ark, the Covenant, to wit, the Tables of stone, the adoption which ex∣cluded the Gentiles from being Gods people; and concerning the other three, the giving of the Law, discent from the Fathers, Christs consanguinity, they are such as cannot be to any other, and are all re∣compensed abundantly by the comming of Christ, the gift of the Spirit, preaching of the Gospel, without infants visible churchmembership. And therefore though there be no such thing as those things mention∣ed, Rom. 9.4, 5. to them that are out or in the visible Church Christi∣an, yet there are better things to Christians, which make their condi∣tion, and the••r infants not actually visible churchmembers, better then the Jewish churchstate at the best.

6. Saith he, If it be better to be in Gods house and family then out, and in his visible Kingdome then out; then it is better to be in the Church (though but as the Jews were) then out: But the former is evident; therefore the later.

Answ. It is true, it is better to be in Gods house and family then out, and so infants may be though they be not in the Christian Church visi∣ble;

and though they be not in Christs visible Kingdome, yet they may be in his invisible, which is most truly his Kingdome and house, and this estate is better then to be in the Jewish Church visible. But it was not better with infants by vertue of their visible churchmember∣ship, then it is with believers infants without it, sith they are freed from the yoke of bondage the Jews were under, and have equal portion, if not more of Evangelical grace then they had, and therefore the conse∣quence is denied.

7. Saith Mr. B. If it be better to be a sanctified peculiar people of God, then to be none such (but an excluded common unclean people;) then it is better to be in the Church (though but as the Jews were) then out of the Church: But the former is most certain; therefore the l••ter. The conse∣quence is plain, in that all the Church, both Jews and Gentiles are properly a peculiar people separated or sanctified to God; and so are they still called in the Old Testament and New: And therefore those without the Church must needs be an excluded people (even as election of some implieth passing by or rejecting of others;) and therefore are called common and unclean frequently.

Answ. This being understood of the visible Church, it is false that those without the Church visible must needs be an excluded people from God; for then all abortives, and still-born children, persons dying without signs sensible of faith and repentance though before God be∣lievers, excommunicate persons should b•• excluded from God. And as for Mr. Bs. proof, that the Church are properly a peculiar people sepa∣rated or sanctified to God, this cannot be true in reality (which must make their condition better) but onely of those who are of the invisible also, of which infants may be, though not of the visible; of the rest it is true onely in appearance, which makes their condition not better in the Church, but worse then of those without, sith the odiousness of their hypocrisie provokes God against them the more, though cloaked from men by their fair profession.

8. Sai••h he▪

If God do not usually bestow so many or greater mercies out of his Church, as he doth in it; then it is worse to be out of the Church, then to be in it (though but as the Jews were:) But certainly God useth not to bestow so many or greater mercies out of the Church, as in it; therefore it is worse to be out then in (though but as the Jews.)

Answ. Mr. B. should prove the minor (which I deny) that God doth not bestow usually so many or greater mercies to infants now not visible Christian churchmembers, as he did to infants in the Jewish Church visible; (For so must his minor be, if his conclusion oppose my position:) which sith he proves not, my denial is sufficient answer.

9. Saith he,

If Christ have made larger promises to his Church visible, then to any in the world that are not of the Church, (nay, if there be no special promise at all, nor scarce common, to any without the Church, but the conditional, upon their comming in,) then is it worse to be out of the Church then to be so in it: But the former is true, therefore the later.

Answ. Mr. B. brings no proof for his minor, and therefore it is enough for me to deny it, as being false concerning abortives, still-born, infant children elect, and others.

10. Saith he,

If Christ have promised his presence to his Church to the end of the world, and to walk among his golden can••lesticks, and take pleasure in her; but not so to those without the Church: then it is better being with••n (though but as the Jews) then without. But the former is true; therefore the latter. Did I not resolve on brevi••y, it were easier to cite multitudes of texts for all these.

Answ. Mr. B. should prove his minor, that Christ hath promised these things to infants in the visible Church Jewish, and not to infants of believers, who are not visible churchmembers Christian; for which, though he talk of multitudes of texts, yet I shall not believe he hath any till he produce them.

He adds.

But upon this much I say to the contrary minded as Joshua in another case, choose you of what society you will be of; but as for me and my houshold, we will be of the Church of God.

Answ. And so say I, if I can prevail with them, or for them.

Mr. B. adds,

And had I children, I should be loth God should shut th••m out.

Answ. So s••y I.

Again Mr. B.

For without are dogs, extortioners, liars, &c. Even Christ calls the woman of Canaan that was without, a dog; though when he had admitted her into his Church, she became a daughter.

Answ. The words, Revel. 22.15. without are dogs, the verse fore∣going shews to be meant of being without the city where the blessed enter; and it being compared with Rev. 21.8. thence appears, that they that are without are cast into the lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death: which if he say (as his words intimate) of all that are not visible churchmembers, he pronounceth a bloudy sen∣tence against millions that are in heaven, and must be a hundred times more uncomfortable to parents concerning their abortive still-born children, then any thing I ever held. And his abuse of Christs words, Matth. 15.26. Mark 7 27. is yet more gross, in alledging them after that, Rev 22.15. as if dogs, Matth. 15.26. were of the same sense with dogs in the other, whereas Rev. 12.15. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and doth note such as rend them that give holy things to them, Matth. 7.6. but Matth. 15.26. Mark 7.27. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, little dogs and doth not note persons so called from their profane, ••ischievous, impious behaviour, but in opposition to children, that is Jews, such as were of G••••tile dis∣cent, and therefore accounted unclean And the application of them is as bad, as if the not ma••ing infants Christian visible churchmembers, made them dogs in either sense: Whereas to make the•• dogs, as Rev. 22.15. is meant, is not onely to make them non-visible churchmembers, but also of most wicked manners and damned wretches; and the term dogs, as used Matth. 15 26. might be applied as well to visible church∣members not Jewish, such as Cornelius, Acts 10.2. as to those out of it. Nor doth it appear that our Lord Christ either admitted the woman of

Canaan into his Church or termed her daughter (as Mr. Bs. words inti∣mate) but woman after her manifestation of faith. So that Mr. B. as his wont is, doth prophanely abuse the Scripture, to make his adver∣saries tene•• appear odious without cause. What he adds, I say there∣fore as Peter whither shall we go, if we forsake the Church? It is good for us to be here: those that will needs think it better to be out of the Church then in it, let them go; they need no Anathema, nor excommunication, seeing they think it such a mercy to bee without the Church, I will not say of it as Paul of his ship, except ye abide in it, ye cannot ••ee saved, and so I conclude, Christ did not come to believers hurt, by unchurching their children, doth but shew his malignant disposition to spit as much venome as hee can against his antagonists and their doctrine, ca∣lumniating it as tending to forsaking the Church, thinking it better to be out of the Church then in it, thinking it a mercy to bee without the Church, Christ did come to believers hurt by unchurching their children, none of which followes from my tenet, but the charging of them on it shewing Mr. Bs. spightfulness towards mee, and the truth, which the Lord forgive him.

In the same vein of scribling, Mr. B. proceeds thus ch. 15. My 10th. arg is this from Heb. 8.6. [Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises. Heb. 7.22. And the Author of a better testament. Rom. 5.14, 15, 20. Where sin abounded grace much more a∣bounded Ephes. 3.19, 20. That ye may comprehend the height, and breadth, and length, and depth, and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledg] with a hundred the like places; from whence I argue thus, If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now (in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comfort therein) then it was before Christs comming, then our children ought to bee Churchmembers: (and consequently that ordi∣nance and merciful gift is not repealed.) But all the said texts and ma∣ny more shew that the Church of Christ is not in a worse condition now then it was then (but unconceivably better:) therefore our children ought to bee Churchmembers, as well as theirs was then. I have before proved that it is worse to bee out of ehe Church then in it; and then nothing else can bee said against this argument that I know of.

Answ. That Mr. B. hath not proved any thing he should have pro∣ved in contradiction to my tenet is before shewed. To the argument here made I answer, 1. by denying the syllog••sm to be right in form for want of putting in the minor, those words (in regard of their childrens happi∣ness and their parents com••ort therein) and adding in the minor those words (but unconceivably better) which were not in the major, where∣by the syllogis•• is monstrous consisting of ••our or five terms. 2. Let∣ting that pass I deny the consequence of the major, and aver that though our infants be not visible Churchmembers now, yet the Church of Christ is not in a worse state now (in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comforts therein) then it was before Christs com••ing, but unconceivably better, in regard of the comming of Christ in the flesh, the gift of the spirit, the preaching of the gospel, &c.

3. That none of the texts speak any thing for Mr. Bs. purpose, but ra∣ther against it. In the first it is said the Covenant of which Christ is me∣diator is better then that of which Moses or Aaron were mediators, and that it is established on better promises, the former containing for the most part promises of ear••hly blessings in Canaan, and that promise which was of righteousness, was upon the condition of keeping the Law, with∣out promise of the spirit; now the new Covenant promises righteousness, forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ, with a promise of the spi∣rit. But these promises belong not to the Church as it is visible, but as it contains the elect, of which sort infants may be though they be not vi∣sible Churchmembers, there's not a word of promise that the visible Church shall consist of a whole nation, of all sorts of people in a nation infants and elder, much less shall consist of more sorts of people then were in the Jewish Church, but of more ample mercies spiritual to the elect, who were all of the invisible Church though not of the visible, and among them infants, abortives, stil born chi••dren, which could not be of the visible; and therefore to speak truth, parents have more comfort by this Covenant both for themselves and children, in that it assures more ample grace, and that to more then visible members under the New Te∣stament. The same answer is to be given to Heb. 7.22. though ••he word be not as Mr. B. here reads it [author] but [surety.] The next text speaks of the abounding of grace by Christ beyond the evil of sin by Adams transgression, nothing at all of the enlargement of the visible Church since Christs comming in respect of the sorts of members, over that which the visible Church Jewish had. Yea such a position as it hath not the least footing in the text, so would it not stand with Mr. Bs. and o∣ther Paedobap••ists doctrine, that the visible churchmembership is a pri∣viledge of believers children: but in respect of extent of persons, it was better with the visible Church then, sith it comprehended serva••ts, and the bought children of strangers. And for the last text, to imagine that the love of Christ is every whit the less if infants be not visible churchmem∣bers, is such a conceit as I judge a meer dotage. But there is more of it in that which follows.

Further, saith Mr. B. I might prove it out of Ephes. 2.12. They that are out of the Church are said to be strangers to the Covenant, and without hope, and without God in the world, in comparison with those within the Church. O how little then do they apprehend that height and depth! &c. or know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge, who think that Christ will unchurch all the infants of believers now, that took them in so tender∣ly in the time of Moses? How insensible do they appear to be of the glori∣ous riches of the Gospel, and the free abundant grace of Christ, who have such unworthy thoughts of him, as if he would put all our children out of his Church? How little know they the difference between Christ and Moses, that think they might then be churchmembers and not now? And yet (oh the blindness▪) these men do this under pretence of magnifying the sperituality of the Gospel priviledges▪ As if to he a member of Christs Church were a carnal thing••; or as if the visible Church were not the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies!

Answ. The Apostle doth not say they that are out of the Church any more then they that are uncircumcised are without hope, without God, nor doth he speak comparatively but absolutely. Nor doth he speak universally of all without the Church, but particularly of the Ephesians, nor of them as out of the Church universal but Jewish, nor this as they were merely negatively or privatively out for want of not taking on them the yoke of Moses Law, but as they walked after the course of the world v. 2, 3. So that these things are not said of them barely as non∣visible churchmembers then in the Jewish Church as infants are now in the Christian (for then these things might have bin said of Cornelius and his house as well as of them, who were uncircumcised, not in the Com∣monwealth of Israel) but as they were idolaters, alienated from the life of God, and so were neither members of the Church visible, nor invisible of true believers at that time. Therefore to charge us with making the estate of infants of believers by our doctrine as the estate of those mentioned Ephes. 2.12. is a meer calumny tending to nothing else but indirectly to create prejudice in men against the truth. And of the same kinde is that which followes, which insinuates as if by deny∣ing infants visible churchmembership, we lessened Christs love, were insensible of it, and the glorious riches of the Gospel, made Christ less ten∣der now of infants of believers then in Moses time, and had such unwor∣thy thoughts of Christ, as if he would put all our children out of his Church, and knew not the difference between Christ and Moses, all which are meer flams and frivolous false accusations, fit to take with shallow Paedobaptists, who are caught with flourishes of Rhetorick rather then solid reason. And for that which hee censures as my blindness, I may rather admire his in not discerning it. For however to be a mem∣ber of Christs Church may be more then a carnal thing, yet to bee a visible Churchmember by natural discent without faith is but a car∣nal thing, and in this respect the Church Jewish was more carnal then the Christian Church, as the Scriptures intimate, though they were the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies. The rest that follows is in the same calumniating vein, for wee say as the Apostle Gal. 4.27. that is, that the new Covenant or Gentile Church hath more children then the Jewish, in that there were more belie∣vers in the world on the preaching of the Gospel as is said Revel. 5.9. th••n in the national Church Jewish, nor do wee, as Mr. B. belies us, make all or any of the children of the new Covenant or Gentile Church cast out, for t••ey onely are those who are by promise, born after the spirit, that is, true believers v. 28, 29. and not as ignorantly and fondly Mr. B. imagines all the infant children of Gentile belie∣vers. Nor do wee by our doctrine contradict the Apostles words Heb. 12.40. which are ridiculously applied to infants visible Churchmem∣bership. For the better thing provided for us in that which the believers afore Christ received not, which is by some conceived to bee heaven, but generally Protestant Divines understand it of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, and the clear knowledge of him, which if true, proves what I av••r▪ that▪ Christs exhibition in the flesh, the gift of the spirit,

and the revelation of the Gospel, and the taking in of the Gentiles, are in stead of that visible Churchmembership the Jewes had, and all the priviledges annexed. However it cannot bee infants visible Church∣membership as Mr. B. makes it, for that they had as Mr. B. asserts, and therefore the denying of it by me, makes not us in so much worse a con∣dition then they. Nor do wee by denying infants visible Churchmem∣bership aver the partition wall taken down Ephes. 2.14. by Christ to be in part standing, For the partition wa••l ••s clearly meant of the body of Ceremonies, and necessitie of repairing to the Temple and taking the yoke of Moses Law on them, which kept the Gentiles from joyning with the Jewes in the worship of the same God, which I keep not up in any sort, much less pluck up the wall of the Church or vine∣yard it self, and as for our children to lay all waste to the wilder∣ness, but Mr. B. by maintaining a national Church or visible Church∣membership by natural discent, doth keep up the partition wall in true construction, sith the way of pulling down the parti••ion wall by God, ha••h been by making all one body through faith, the succession of which in the place of Circumcision and the Jewish Churchmember∣ship, is the doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. and elsewhere, as is shewed before.

Mr. B. continues the same prattle Ch. 15. thus.

My 11. arg. is this, If the children of believers be now put out of the Church, then they are in a worse condicion then the very children of the Gentiles were before the comming of Christ: But that were most absurd and false; therefore so is the antecedent. The consequent would plainly follow, if the antecedent were true, as is evident thus: Before Christs comming any Gentile in the world without exception, if hee would might have his children to be members of the visible Church: But now (according to Mr. T.) no Gentile may have his child a member of the Church; therefore according to this doctrine, the very Gentiles as well as the Jews, are in a worse condition now: and Christ should come to be a destroyer, and do hurt to all the world, (which is most vile doctrine.) That the Gentiles might have their children Church-members before, if they would come in themselves, is not denied nor indeed can bee: For it is the express letter of Gods law, that any stranger that would come in might bring his children, and all bee cir∣cumcised and admitted members of the Jews Church: This was the case of any that would be full proselytes; God in providence did deny to give the knowledge of his laws to the Gentiles, as he did to the Jews, but he excepted no man out of the mercy of his Covenant, that would come in and take it (except some few that were destinated to wrath for the height of their wickedness, whom he commanded them presently utterly to destroy.) If any say that the Gentiles were admitted with their infants into no Church, but the particular Church of the Jews, I shall answer him 1. That it is false; for they were admitted into the visible universal Church, as I shall shew more fully afterward. 2. If it were so, yet the Church of the Jewes was a happy Church of God, in a thousand fold better state, then those without.

So that he that will be of the faith of our opposers, you see, must be∣lieve that Christ hath come to deny the very Gentiles that priviledge which for their children they had before. Yea, that you may see it was not tied to the Jews onely, or the seed of Abraham, even when Abrahams own family was circumcised, (and as Mr. T. thinks, then first admitted all into the Church:) there was but one of the seed of Abraham circumcised at that time (for he had no one but Ishmael) but of servants that were not of his seed, there were admitted or cir∣cumcised 318. trained men-servants that fought for him▪ Gen. 14.14. and how many hundred women and children and all he had, you may conjecture. And all these were then of the Church, and but one of Abrahams seed, and that one Ishmael Therefore certainly though the greatest priviledges were reserved for Isaac and his seed, of whom Christ was to come, yet not the priviledge of sole churchmembership; for the very children of Abrahams servants were churchmembers▪ And so I think this is plain enough.

Answ. It is most vile doctrine, to say, Christ came to be a destroy∣er, and to do hurt to all the world; and it is most vile doctrine which Mr. B. insinuates, as if the denying of infants visible churchmembership did infer their destruction: which is most palpably false, sith neither were all churchmembers visible saved, as v. g. Ishmael, Esau; nor all non-visible churchmembers damned, as v. g. abortives, still-borns. And therefore Mr. B. by these insinuations discovers nothing but his own vitulency, and I can justly deny the consequence of his argument till he shew me what benefit the infants of believers now do lose by not being Christian visible churchmembers which tends to their destructi∣on, and what is the benefit of infant visible Christian churchmember∣ship which is for their salvation, which they have not though they be not visible churchmembers, I mean real and not meer putative benefit. For my part, 1. I think still that infants were not admitted into any visible Church but the Jews, and their being of the universal was onely in that they were of the Jewish. 2. I think it is a benefit not to be of the Church Jewish, in which men were entred by circumcision, and bound to keep the law; and that Cornelius, and such other as were not full proselytes, were in as good a case as the full proselytes; and that it is but vain talk of Mr. B. that the Church of the Jews was a happy Church of God, in a thousand fold better estate then those without onely as pro∣selytes of the gate. 3. That though there were in the Jewish Church other then Abrahams seed, yet they were all of the Hebrew Common∣wealth. 4. That many of those churchmembers had no part in any of the promises made to Abraham. And I think this argument of Mr. B. takes onely with them who superficially look into the thing, as Mr. B. hath done.