More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 49 – Section 51
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 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 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 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 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?
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?]
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 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 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.