More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 118,119
SECT. CXVIII, CXIX.
R. B. SIR, pardon the weakneſs, and bear with the plainneſs and freeneſs of Your faithful Brother (though not as is meet) Rich. Baxter. May 14. 1655.
Sir, if you have any thing of moment to ſay, in reply to theſe, which you have not yet in your writings brought forth, I ſhall be willing to conſider of it: But if you have not, I pray you tel me ſo in two words, and ſpare the reſt of your pains (as for me) and trouble me no more with matters of this nature. For truly I have no ſufficient vacancy from greater works. Yea, I am conſtrained to forbear much greater than theſe. R. B. After this he tells me, that whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley, in which I refuted by many arguments Infants viſible Church-memberſhip, I muſt be either mutable or hypocritical, if I deny ſuch a Law and Ordinance which I took on me then to refute, and deſires a Copy of that Sermon, that he may ſhew the ſad miſtakes and vanity of thoſe my arguments.
Reply. Reader, to Mr. T.'s anger at theſe ten Queſtions I muſt ſay, 1. That the dolefulneſs of the Churches caſe conſtrained me in grief of heart to deal plainly with him.
2. But it was in a private letter, extorted by his importunity, and publiſhed to the world by himſelf and not by me; who confeſs that this plainneſs was too great for me to have uſed to him publickly: But ſecret admonition diſparageth him not to others. It hath now been by himſelf about nineteen years divulged to the world, and I did not ſo much as trouble his patience by a word of anſwer, and little thought ever to do it: But Major Danvers his loud invitation hath drawn me to give them this Farewell.
THE Reader muſt here take notice that I am not here called to prove Infants Church-memberſhip out of the New Teſtament, but to ſhew out of the Old that they were viſible Church-members before by a Grant or Covenant, which Chriſt hath not repealed. The reſt (out of the New-Teſtament) I have done long ago in my Treatiſe of Infant Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, which Mr. T. is ſo much diſpleaſed at. And indeed I think that the proofs are plain, though many objections may be difficult to be anſwered, eſpecially by thoſe who have not throughly conſidered the caſe. When I ſet together Chriſts own Infant memberſhip, and his kind reception of Infants, and his chiding thoſe that would have kept them off, and his offers of taking in all the Jewiſh Nation into his Church, and that they were broken off by unbelief, and conſequently the ſeed of Believers not broken off from the Church univerſal, and that whole houſholds are oft ſaid to be baptized, and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy, and that Chriſt expreſly, Matth. 28. commandeth his Miniſters as much as in them lieth to Diſciple all Nations baptizing, and it's propheſied that the Kingdoms of the world ſhall be made the Kingdoms of Chriſt, and there is no Nation or Kingdom on earth that Infants are not members of; All this and much more ſeemeth to me a plain revelation of Gods will, that as he never had a Church which excluded Infants, ſo he doth not now exclude them. And it is expreſly ſaid of the Jews that they were all baptized unto Moſes in the cloud and in the ſea, 1 Cor. 10.2. where doubtleſs the Apoſtle in the name had reſpect to our being baptized into Chriſt, of which theirs was a typical Baptiſm; And it is not ſaid in vain that they were [all baptized] including their Infants, but as part of the Analogie, as if he had ſaid [As we now are all baptized into Chriſt.]
Theſe things ſeem to me a certain notification of Gods will herein; which in the foreſaid former Treatiſe I have fullier opened and improved. And ſhould I ſtand to anſwer all the words that Mr. Tombes hath ſaid againſt it, I ſhould needleſly tire the Reader and my Self, and loſe that time which I cannot ſpare.
A Confutation of Mr. Tombes's Reaſons Sect. 52. by which he pretendeth to prove that Infants were not reckoned to the viſible Church-Chriſtian in the Primitive times, nor are now.
Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus: If no Infants were part of the viſible Church-Chriſtian in the Primitive times, then whatever Ordinance there were of their viſible memberſhip before, muſt needs be repealed: But the antecedent is true, ergo, the conſequent — The Antecedent I prove thus. If in all the days of Chriſt on earth, and the Apoſtles, no Infant was a part or member of the viſible Church Chriſtian, then not in the primitive times: But, &c. Ergo, &c. The Minor proved — 1. All viſible members of the Church-Chriſtian were to be baptized: But no Infants were to be baptized: Therefore no Infants were viſible members of the Chriſtian Church.
Anſw. 1. To the Major; they were to be baptiſed after Chriſts baptiſm was inſtituted, Mat. 28.19. but not before, when yet the Chriſtian Church was exiſtent in Chriſt and his Diſciples: Therefore Chriſt was not baptized in his Infancie.
2. To the Minor, If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized, what need he write his books?
Mr. T. 2. They were not viſible members of the Church-Chriſtian who were not of the body of Chriſt: But no Infant was of the viſible body of Chriſt, proved from 1 Cor. 12.13. All that were of the body of Chriſt were made to drink into one ſpirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper: But no Infant was made to drink into one ſpirit; for none of them did drink that Cup, &c.
Anſw. Denying the Minor, I anſwer to the proof: 1. To the Major: 1. Mr. T. elſewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. ſpeaketh of the Church-inviſible only, and yet now he maketh it to be the viſible. 2 [All] is oft put for the Generality and not a proper univerſality: And it ſeemeth hard to prove that every viſible member hath the ſpirit, which is expreſly there ſaid of all the members, though whether Baptiſm and the Lords Supper be included, Mr. T. elſewhere maketh diſputable. But I grant that it is ſpoken of the Church as viſible, and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum, are in judgement of charity ſaid to have the Spirit. 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he aſſerteth, then Baptiſm is firſt included: and ſo if we prove Infants Church-members, this Text will prove them to be baptizable, according to Mr. T. Remember that. 4. But that Mr. T.'s expoſition is not true, that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper, he may be turned about to confeſs himſelf: For, 1. Doubtleſs he thinks that this Chapter ſpeaketh of the Church not only as viſible (if at all) but as inviſible alſo; and he oft ſaith that many real members of Chriſts body have not the Sacrament. 2. By this his expoſition, his adult Baptizing ſhould not make or prove any to be viſible Church-members till they drink of the Cup; though it were a year or many years. 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through ſcruples (about Church-orders, or their own fitneſs, which are the caſes of multitudes) ſhould be viſible members: Nor thoſe that live where they cannot have the Sacrament: Nor any Lay-man in all the Popiſh Church, where the Cup is denied the Laity.
2. To the Minor, Infants might be baptized into one ſpirit by the initiating Sacrament, in order to the reſt to be partaked of in due time: And as not every Church-ſuſpenſion, ſo Natural-ſuſpenſion of further priviledges, nullifieth not memberſhip.
Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17. All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken: But no Infant did partake —
Anſw. 1. Chriſt and his Diſciples did not partake of it before the inſtitution: 2. No baptized perſons partake of it in the interſpace between the two Sacraments: which with ſome is a long time: 3. A baptized perſon may die before he drinketh that Cup; or may live where it is not lawfully to be had. 4. Church-members may be ſuſpended from the Lords Table. Therefore the text ſpeaketh not of every member, but of the ordinary communion of capable perſons.
Mr. T. Eph. 4.5. The whole Church is one bodie, and hath one Lord, and one faith: But no Infant hath one faith]
Anſw. 1. It is ſpoken of the generality of the nobleſt and capable members, denominating the Church: The Apoſtle ſaith not that every member hath all theſe, but [There is one Lord, one faith, &c.] Chriſt had not one Lord (being Lord himſelf as here underſtood) and yet was a member: Chriſt in the womb cannot be proved to have actually h…d that one faith; and he was long the chief member before he was baptized: And whether ever the twelve Apoſtles were, is uncertain.
2. The Text ſeemeth chiefly to ſpeak of the Doctrine of faith, called objective faith; one Creed: And this the Church might have, and yet not each member actually believe. For, 3. The Parent in faith devoting himſelf and his Infant to God, his Faith and Conſent is reputatively the Childs, who is uſed as a member of the Parent.
Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the viſible Church, who were left out of the number of the whole Church, all the Believers, the multitude of the Diſciples, &c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Teſtament, Ergo: —
Anſw. 1. Many texts ſpeak of all that were preſent only; and many ſpeak only of ſuch as the preſent matter did concern: And it is moſt uſual to denominate All or the Body from the Nobleſt and Greateſt part. If you were to deſcribe a Kingdom, would you not ſay that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures (or men) conſenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects and the duties of each for the common welfare? You would ſo define it as that Reaſon, Conſent and Intention ſhould be in the definition. Infants have none of theſe in act, and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom (of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of?) So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now: And yet is it not uſual with us to ſay that all the Church met to hear, or to do this or that? When yet the Infants and many others might be abſent.
The Texts Mr. T. alledgeth are, Acts 1.15. The number of the names together were about 120.
Anſw. Though I take not the Church then to be ſo numerous as ſome do, yet reaſon is reaſon: Can we think that when Chriſt was ſeen after his reſurrection of more than 500 Brethren at once, that only 120 of them were Chriſtians? And can we think that Nicodemus and Joſeph of Arimathea and many more, were not timerous fainthearted Chriſtians? It's like that the text meaneth that this 120 was the number of thoſe bold confirmed Chriſtians who ſo quickly after Chriſts death appeared in open profeſſion and conjunction with the Apoſtles, and had opportunity to aſſemble at that time and place.
The next is Act. 2.1. They were all with one accord in one place.
Anſw. This needeth no other anſwer than as before. The other texts, Act. 2.41, 44. & 4.4, 23, 24. & 5.11, 13, 14. & 6.1, 2, 7. & 8.1. & 15.22. 1 Cor. 14.23. need no other anſwer: His expoſition would ſometimes exclude women, and ſometimes many of the men: Doth he believe no man or woman was a member of the Church, Act. 15.22. who did not ſend men of their own company? Nor any man or woman a member of the Church at Jeruſalem, that did not being ſcattered go about Preaching, Act. 8.1, &c. 1 Cor. 14. it is ſaid, You may all propheſie, and yet women are forbidden.
Mr. T. 4. They were no part of the Chriſtian Church viſible to whom the things aſcribed to the whole Church did not agree: But the things aſcribed to the whole Chriſtian Church viſible did not agree to Infants: Ergo—
Anſw. This is fully anſwered already. It is moſt uſual to aſcribe that to a Church or other Society which is done only by the moſt conſiderable part. As I ſaid before, when rational Conſent, Contract, Intention, are aſcribed to a Kingdom; which is conſtituted by the conſent of King and Subjects: and yet Infants are members who conſent not, ſave by their Parents. The Church meeteth to chooſe a Paſtor, when yet the women meet not: The Church admoniſheth a faulty member, when every woman doth not admoniſh him: Our Churches meet all to hear, when Children meet not, whom we take for members: Theſe are not ſatisfactory allegations, being contrary to common uſe of words, and to many texts of Scripture.
Mr. T. The Minor is proved, Matth. 16.18. On this Rock will I build my Church, viz. by Preaching.
Anſw. When Preaching converted the Parents, they devoted themſelves to God, and all that were in their truſt and power; and that Preaching brought in by conſequence the Infants that did not hear. I prove it, 1. Chriſt commandeth the diſcipling of Nations and baptizing them (that is, as much as in the Preacher lieth:) But Infants are part of thoſe Nations: Therefore he commandeth the diſcipling and baptizing of Infants, (as much as in the Preacher lay,) which could be done but by the ſucceſs of preaching on the Parents. 2. The Kingdoms of the world are made the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Chriſt: But Infants are members of all thoſe Kingdoms: But this is done at large elſewhere.
Mr. T. 1 Cor. 1.2. called to be Saints; Act. 2.41, 47. & 5.14. They that were added to the Church did hear and believe, &c.
Anſw. I will not weary the Reader with repeating the ſame anſwers to the like things.
Mr. T. 5. They who are not reckoned Chriſts Diſciples were not viſible Church-members: But Infants are no where reckoned as Chriſts Diſciples: ergo. —
Anſw. 1. What is ſaid before to the other Texts anſwereth all theſe. The Actions of adult Diſciples only were in mention. 2. Infants are called Diſciples, Acts 15. as I have elſewhere proved, on whoſe neck the yoak of Circumciſion was laid; And in Matth. 28.19. when Nations are to be diſcipled. 3. Mr. T. himſelf confeſſeth that Chriſt was habitually and by deſignation a Prophet in Infancy, and that ſo may Infants be Diſciples.
Mr. T. 6. If in the diſtribution of the members of the Church then, Infants are not comprehended, then Infants were not viſible Church-members — But, &c.
Anſw. 1. Here he inſtanceth in 1. The ſex, Men and Women, 2. Jews and Gentiles, 3. Circumciſion and uncircumciſion, mentioned, but not Infants. But if Infants be of neither ſex, male nor female, nor of Jews or Gentiles, nor circumciſion nor uncircumciſion, I plead not for them.
2. If thoſe Texts cited by you mention not Infants, others do, as I have elſewhere proved: Our children are called Holy, and a bleſſed ſeed, and received by Chriſt, and of ſuch is the Kingdom of God, &c. And you confeſs it of Chriſt himſelf in his Infancie, and yet now forget it, or contradict your ſelf.
Mr. T. 2. I argue from the common received definitions of the viſible Church, Acts 19. of the Church of England: A congregation of faithful men — &c.
Anſw. And ſo Kingdoms and all Societies that Infants are members of, are accordingly defined, as is aforeſaid. You cannot deny it. And was not the Church before Chriſts incarnation a ſociety of faithful men, when yet you confeſs that Infants were viſible parts of is?
Mr. T. 3. I argue, They are no viſible members of the Chriſtian Church, to whom no note whereby a viſible Chriſtian Church or Church-memberſhip is diſcernable, doth agree: But, &c. ergo—
Anſw. When a man thinks only what to ſay for his cauſe, and never thinks what can be ſaid againſt it, his judgement is of little value. 1. All that agreeth to Infants which was requiſite to a viſible Infant member before Chriſts coming; And do you not confeſs that they were members then among the Jews? 2. Did nothing in Chriſt himſelf in Infancy agree with viſible memberſhip? Yes; the open Revelations of God as to a viſible perſon: You confeſs before as much as I need. 3. The eſſentiating qualification of a Church-member, is Covenant-conſent, ſuch as God according to the ſenſe of his offered Covenant will accept as ſuch: But Infants have this Covenant-conſent, ſeeing they conſent by their Parents who are entruſted to do it for them, as if they were parts of themſelves: As the Jews Infants did. Mutual conſent of God and themſelves by their Parents is it that maketh them members. I have oft wondered to read in orthodox Divines, that the Word purely preached, Sacraments and Diſcipline, are the marks of the true Church. No doubt but Heart-conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant of Grace maketh a ſincere member of the true Church (which the Infant doth by the Parent,) and profeſſed conſent to the ſame Covenant maketh a viſible member (which regularly muſt be by Baptiſm for inveſtiture.) But a true Church may long by perſecution be hindred from publick aſſemblies, Preaching, Sacraments and Diſcipline; And may have much corruption in all theſe.
Mr. T. maketh this mutual conſent as two diſtinct pretended Notes, denying either of them to be true marks.
Anſw. Neither the Princes conſent alone, nor the Subjects alone maketh a Common-wealth: Neither the Husbands conſent alone, or the Wives maketh a marriage; but both conjunct: So here: Mutual conſent maketh a Church-member: But ſo, that Gods Conſent is the Donative efficient cauſe, and mans conſent is the receptive cauſe, which is conditio ſine qua non. They that will not impartially think of plain caſes cannot underſtand them. Your unthankful denying that God hath made any ſuch Promiſe, Covenant or Conſent, is elſewhere confuted: And if I ſhall ſay with Davenant and the Synod of Dort that this Covenant being the ſame that is made with Parents themſelves, giveth the Children the ſame Right to Pardon and Life eternal according to their capacity, ſo that faithful Parents ſhould not doubt of the Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy (ut Synod. Dort. Art. 1. c. 17.) I could better with them bear the conſequence (of the loſs of Gratia Infantilis in ſome at age) than the conſequents of … turning them all out of the viſible Church. The former I know no Chriſtian that ever oppoſed for many and many hundred years after Chriſt; and the latter the univerſal Church as long oppoſed: And yet I will not ſubſcribe that [It is certain by the word of God that baptized Infants dying before actual ſin, are certainly ſaved,] without excepting the Infants of Heathens or Infidels, wrongfully baptized.
Mr. T. 4. I argue: They who have not the form conſtituting and denominating a viſible Church-member, are not viſible Church-members. But. Ergo. Profeſſion of faith is the form conſtituting, &c.
Anſw. 1. Covenant Conſent is the form conſtituting ex parte Recipientis, and this they have reputatively in their Parents, whoſe will is as theirs.
2. The Jews Infants had the form conſtituting a viſible member as you confeſs. And that was not circumciſion; For the uncircumciſed females, and males too in the wilderneſs were viſible members: Nor was it to be born of Jews; For apoſtate Jews forfeited it, and Proſelytes of other Nations obtained it: But it was by conſent to Gods Covenant.
3. And Chriſt was a viſible member by Divine Revelation. His arguings would make againſt Chriſts Righteouſneſs Imputed to believers, and Adams or the Parents ſins imputed to them.
Mr. T. 5. If Infants be viſible Chriſtian Church-members, then there may be a viſible Church-Chriſtian which conſiſts only of Infants of believers— But this is …bſurd: Ergo.
Anſw. Such quibbles ſeem ſomething when the Will giveth them their force. 1. Infants are members of all Kingdoms under Heaven: And yet there neither is nor can be a Kingdom of Infants only. 2. Members are Eſſential or Integral. Becauſe the exerciſe of the faculties of the Pars Imperans and Pars ſubdita is the intended means to the Common Good, which is the End of Government, therefore there can be no Governed Society, Kingdom or other proper Policy of which men that have the uſe of Reaſon are not members: that there be ſome ſuch to be the Active part is Eſſential to the Society: But yet Infants that are yet but virtually ſuch, are Integral members.
Mr. T. 6. I argue: If Infants be viſible Church-members, there is ſome Cauſe of it: But there is no Cauſe: Ergo —
Anſw. The Cauſe efficient is Gods Revealed Donation and Covenant Conſent: The Cauſe Receptive or the Condition of Reception, is That this be the Child of a Conſenting believer.
Mr. T. To this 1. Mr. T. denyeth any ſuch Covenant of grace to the faithful and their ſeed (which is ſoon ſaid.)
2. He ſaith the Conditional Covenant promiſeth Juſtification, Salvation, on Condition of faith, and not viſible Church-memberſhip, and ſo belongs to all as Mr. B. &c.
Anſw. 1. It giveth both Juſtification and viſible memberſhip; that is, Right to both and many other Covenant benefits. 2. It belongeth Conditionally to all, and Conditionally gives union with Chriſt and his Church, and Pardon and life to all: But actually to none, till the condition be performed; which is a believing Parents conſent, and regularly his Baptiſmal dedication.
Mr. T. If there were a Covenant to the faithful and their ſeed, to be their God, yet this would not prove their Infants Chriſtian viſible Church-memberſhip: As he is the God of Abraham, of Infants dying in the wombs of believers at the hour of death—
Anſw. It's true, if they be not the Children of viſible believers; becauſe they are not viſibly capable ſubjects. But it being ſuch that we ſpeak of, your three inſtances are abuſive. 1. Abraham is a viſible Church-member of the Church Triumphant where he is. I will not believe you if you deny it. 2. Infants of viſible Chriſtians dying in the womb, are in that degree viſible Church-members as they are viſible perſons: that is, It is a known thing that they are the children of God according to their capacity. 3. One viſibly believing at the hour of death is a viſible Church-member: One not viſibly believing belongeth not to our caſe.
Mr. T. If all theſe which Mr. B. makes the cauſe or condition, may be in act, and the effect not be, then the cauſe which Mr. B. aſſigneth is not ſufficient. But &c. For they may all be before the child is born.
Anſw. A meer quibble. 1. Before he is born I tell you as far as he is viſibly the child of a viſible Chriſtian, ſo fa… he is a viſible unborn member: But as to that degree of viſible memberſhip which is proper to born baptizable Infants, two cauſes are wanting to the unborn: 1. Gods conſent or donation: For though the Promiſe as a donative Inſtrument was exiſtent a thouſand years before, it effecteth not the gift till the ſubject be Receptive or capable: God may promiſe a thouſand years before in diem or ſub conditione, which ſignifyeth his conſent that ſo and then it ſhall be due, and not otherwiſe or before. Theſe eaſie things ſhould not be thus winked at. 2. The Parents conſent is wanting: For though the Parent dedicate the child in the womb to God by promiſe, yet he doth not deliver him up in the baptiſmal Covenant as a viſible perſon till he is born.
Mr. T. reciting my anſwer elſewhere ſaith [It deſerveth a ſmile: For I make Chriſt by his Law or Covenant-grant the only cauſe efficient] The reſt of his words are 1. To tell us that Juſtification &c. hath a further efficient after the Covenant; which cauſeth Juſtificability, but not actual Juſtification without mans faith. 2. That I err in taking viſible memberſhip to be a Right, and moral effect.
Anſw. I take not that for the picture of the wiſeſt man, whom the Painter draweth laughing or ſmiling. And I am now confirmed in that fancy. 1. A Teſtament or Deed of Gift in diem which ſaith At ſeven years end that land ſhall be yours] may be the only efficient Inſtrument, long before exiſtent, and yet give you no right till the time; and then give it▪ Becauſe it effecteth but by ſignification of the Donors will. Muſt the Chriſtendom of Kingdoms be impetuouſly queſtioned by men that know not ſuch rudiments as theſe? 2. That Juſtification which is given us at our believing, which is [our Right to Impunity and Life] is the Immediate effect of the Covenant Donation; and mans faith is no efficient but a Recipient cauſe of it (As even they confeſs that call it a Receiving Inſtrument:) And yet we have it not till we believe or conſent. Who would have thought that ſuch a m…n as you had taken your own faith to be an efficient cauſe of your own Juſtification, and ſo that you juſtifie your ſelf? And what if one give land to you and your heirs? It is none of theirs till they are in being: And yet their birth is no efficient cauſe, but only the cauſe of the ſubjects receptive capacity. I am aſhamed that you put me thus to catechize you.
Mr. T. 5. If viſible Church-memberſhip be antecedent to the intereſt a perſon hath in the Covenant, then the Covenant is not the cauſe of it. But &c. Ergo —
Anſw. The word [Intereſt] may ſignifie the Intereſt that fallen mankind hath in the Covenant as conditional antecedent to mans conſent: And thus I ſuppoſe neither you nor I here ſpeak of it. But if by my Intereſt you mean, that I am the perſon to whom the Covenant giveth a preſent Right to its benefits, I anſwer, Some benefits follow long after: but when I conſent, then I am the perſon to whom the Covenant giveth a preſent Right to union with Chriſt, in the firſt inſtant and conſequently with his Church or body in the ſecond: ſo that here is no ſuch thing as your feigned memberſhip before Covenant intereſt, that is, before a Right to that Relation by Gods donation. And as … former dream that this is not a Right an… moral effect but a phyſical, it was your ſelf and not I that ſubjected you to the ſhame of ſuch an aſſertion, which I will no more confute.
Mr. T. 6. If the Covenant &c. be the only … bought Orphans of Turks, wholly at our diſpoſe, are no viſible members, &c.
Anſw. No friend of truth will run into the dark with a controverſie, and argue à minus notis. Many judicious Divines think that Gods Covenant with Abrahams Infants born in his houſe, proveth that two things go to make up the capacity of an Infant for baptiſm: 1. That he be his own and at his diſpoſe who offereth him to God. 2. That he be offered or dedicated by a Conſenting Owner. Now their reaſon is becauſe if they be our own, we have the diſpoſe of them for their good, and our wills are theirs. But the caſe is moſt clear about thoſe that by Generation are our own, and darker about thoſe that are by Adoption or purchaſe our own. Now here you do nothing but deny the darker (which you cannot diſprove) and thence the plainer which we have fully proved.
Mr. T. 7. If the Covenant o… Law with the Parents actual faith without profeſſion, make not the Parent a viſible Church-member, neither doth it the child. But — Ergo.
Anſw. I grant both major and minor: He that is not known to have faith, is not a viſible adult member: And he that is not known to be the (juſtly reputed) child of a profeſſed believer, is … an Infant Church-member. And what's this … our controverſie? Heart conſent maketh a myſtical or inviſible Chriſtian and member, and Profeſſed belief (that is, Believing Conſent) maketh a viſible member of the parent, and is neceſſary to the viſible memberſhip of the child: If I may call that Making them, which is but the Diſpoſition of the material Receptive conſtitutive cauſe. It's pitty we ſhould have need to talk at this rate.
Mr. T. 8. If perſons are viſible Church-members and not by the Covenant of Grace, then it is not true that Chriſt by his Law or Covenant is the ſole efficient of viſible Church-memberſhip. The minor is proved in Judas and hypocrites.
Anſw. 1. They are not the ſole efficient; Gods Love and mercy alſo is efficient.
2. You profeſs your ſelf that the name [Chriſtian and Church-member] are equivocal as to the ſincere and the hypocrites: If they be not the ſame things, no wonder if they have not the ſame cauſes. That Donation or Covenant may be the ſole neareſt Inſtrumental efficient of True memberſhip, and yet not of Equivocal.
3. God who is our Paternal Beneficient Ruler doth give ſome of his benefits by his Law or Covenant abſolutely and antecedently to mans conditions, and ſome conſequently as Rewards: And Gods Laws having firſt a Preceptive part, as well as a Donative or Premiant, a Right may accrue in foro eccleſiae to an hypocrite from that precept: As e. g. God antecedently doth by his Covenant give the world an Impunity as to the puniſhment of Drowning it: And ſo by his common Law of Grace he giveth the world many common mercies by a Redeemer, and perhaps many by that you call a phyſical act, immediately. And by his Law he (having given a conditional pardon and life to all) commandeth his Miniſters to offer it, and All men to Accept it, and his Miniſters to judge by mens profeſſion, and to uſe profeſſed Accepters as real; becauſe we cannot ſee the heart. This being ſo, when the hypocrite profeſſeth his conſent, the Law obligeth the Miniſter and Church to receive it, by which in foro eccleſiae he hath a right to his Church ſtation. And Chriſt himſelf called Judas, and ſent him out to Preach, and his mandates were as Laws. So that the Right that an hypocrite hath, he hath by the Law which obligeth the Church to uſe him as a true believer, upon his profeſſing to be ſuch. None of this can be denyed. But Judas was called immediately by Chriſt himſelf; and his [follow me] was a precept which gave him a Right to his Relation.
Mr. T. 9. If Infants are viſible members by the Covenant on Condition that the Parents &c. then either the next Parents or in any generation precedent &c.
Anſw. The next Parents that are Owners of the child, and have the truſt and power of diſpoſing of him or covenanting for him: And the Reaſon is, becauſe they have 1. That Propriety, and 2. That truſt and power.
Mr. T. 10. If an Infants viſible Church-memberſhip be by the Covenant on the Parents actual believing, and not a bare profeſſion, then it is a thing that cannot be known, &c.
Anſw. I pitty Readers that muſt be troubled with ſuch kind of talk. 1. The Right of the child is upon [the Believing Parents dedication of that child to God by conſenting that he be in the mutual Covenant.]
2. Heart conſent known only to God giveth no Right coram eccleſia, known to men, but only to ſuch mercy as God who only knoweth it, giveth without the Churches judgement.
3. Believing and profeſſion qualifie for Right in the Judgement both of God and of the Church.
4. Profeſſion without conſenting faith, qualifieth for Right, in the Churches judgement according to Gods Command, who biddeth them ſo judge and do: Wrangle not againſt plain truth.
Mr. T. 11. If other Chriſtian priviledges be not conveyed by a Covenant upon the Parents faith, without the perſons own act and conſent, then neither this. But &c. Not to be a Believer, a diſciple, a Miniſter, a Son of God — There is the like reaſon for them as for this.
Anſw. Priviledges are 1. Proper to the adult, (thoſe concern not our caſe, as to be Miniſters) or common to them with Infants: 2. Priviledges conſiſt either in Phyſical qualities or other Phyſical accidents (and theſe are given by phyſical Action, and ſuch is Knowledge, Belief, Love, Gifts of utterance, health, &c.) Or in Right and Moral Relation, (Jus Debitum, obligatio) Theſe are given by Moral means, that is by ſignification of the Donors will, by precept (obliging,) promiſe or ſignal Donation, which is the Inſtrument of conveyance by that ſignification (As a Teſtament, Deed of Gift, Act of pardon and oblivion, &c. are among men.) Now do you think that the reaſon of Phyſical Qualities and Moral Rights, Relations and duties is the ſame?
2. As a Diſciple, or believer, ſignifieth one that is Reputatively ſuch jure Relationis, and as a Son of God ſignifieth an Adopted heir of heaven, loved of God as a reconciled Father in Chriſt] ſo Infants are ſuch: You ſay (after) that Chriſt was habitually and by deſignation the Head and Prophet of the Church in Infancy, and ſo mihgt Infants be diſciples: And will you now deny it? Again I will ſay though it offend you, that there is no truſting to that mans judgement that looketh all (or partially) on one ſide, and ſtudieth ſo eagarly what will ſerve his cauſe, as that he cannot mind what may be ſaid againſt it. See here what two abhominations you thruſt on your pittiful followers (which yet I know you hold not your ſelf, but the heat of your ſpirit in deſire of victory draweth you to ſay you mind not what) You conclude that none is [A Son of God] without his own conſent: And ſo 1. All Infants are certainly ſhut out of Heaven: for they are no Sons of God without their conſent (neither by Election, Chriſts interceſſion, Covenant or Gift:) And I think you will not ſay that they conſent: And if no ſons, no heirs; For the Inheritance is only of children: And if no ſons, then are they not Regenerate; which is but to be made ſons of God by a new Generation, and renewed to his Image. And do you damn all Infants?
2. And conſider whether you deny not Chriſt in Infancy to have been the Son of God according to his humane nature? For you can never prove that in that nature he actually conſented in the womb or in his Infancy. But partiality is raſh and blind.
Mr. T. 12. If there be no Law or ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this Infant viſible Church-memberſhip is granted, or the liſting of Infants or entring into the viſible Church Chriſtian is made a duty, then it is not a cauſe of Infants viſible Church-memberſhip which Mr. B. aſſigns, &c.
Anſw. I have here proved to you ſuch a Law and Covenant before Chriſts Incarnation, and formerly at large proved it to be continued and renewed by ſpecial ſignification of Chriſts will ſince his Incarnation in the Goſpel. Review now your pittiful Reaſons againſt it.
The Second Part: A CONFUTATION OF THE Strange FORGERIES OF Mr. H. DANVERS, Againſt the ANTIQUITY OF INFANT BAPTISM; And of his many Calumnies againſt my Self and my Writings, with a Catalogue of 56 New Commandments and Doctrines, which he and the Sectaries who joyn with him in thoſe Calumnies ſeem to own.
By Richard Baxter.
LONDON, Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinſon. 1675.