More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 6 – Section 18
SECT. VI.
R. B. IT was then the duty of all the Nations round about (if not of all the Nations on earth, that could have information of the Jewiſh Religion) to engage themſelves and their children to God by Circumciſion. That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jews muſt do it, is commonly confeſſed: that it muſt extend to Infants, the caſe of the Sichemites (though deceitfully drawn to it by ſome of Jacobs ſons) doth ſhew, and ſo doth the Jewiſh practice which they were to imitate: that the ſame engagement to the ſame God is the duty of all the world, is commonly acknowledged, though Divines are not agreed whether the diſtant nations were obliged to uſe Circumciſion the Jewiſh ſign. The beſt of the Jews were zealous to make Proſelytes, and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their beſt for the ſalvation of others. To think ſuch charitable and holy works unlawful, is to think it evil to do the greateſt good. And if they muſt perſwade the neighbour nations to come in to God by Covenant engagement, they muſt perſwade them to bring their children with them, and to devote them to God as well as themſelves. For the Jews kn…w no other covenanting or engaging to God. As the Sichemites muſt do, ſo other nations muſt do: For what priviledge had the children of the Sichemites above the reſt of the world?
Mr. T's Anſwer. The argument in form would be thus: If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themſelves and their children to God by circumciſion, then it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Iſrael that were Church-members, &c.
Reply. 1. You ſhould have ſaid [that would have been Church-members had they done that duty]. But you can beſt ſerve your own turn. 2. One Supream Power maketh one Republick (with the ſubjects); And many Soveraigns make many Republicks (as all grant): Therefore if all the Nations about had engraffed themſelves into the Congregation of Iſrael but as the Sichemites did, they had not made one Republick, as to humane Soveraignty: I preſume to tell you my thoughts of ſuch a caſe (and ſo of the Sichemites): It was the glory of Iſrael to be a Theocracy: God was their Soveragin; not only as he was of all the world (de jure and by overruling their humane Soveraign:) but by ſpecial Revelation doing the work a Soveraign himſelf: He made them Laws (and not Moſes): He appointed them Captains under him by Revelation: He decided caſes by Oracle: He gave them Judges that were Prophets, and acted by his extraordinary ſpirit. Though Moſes is called a King, he was but an Official Magiſtrate, Captain and Prophet: [A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up to you like unto me, &c.] ſaith he: which had immediate reſpect to the form of Government and manner of ſucceſſion, (as differing from the way of Kings which the Iſraelites ſinfully preferred afterward, caſting off this ſpecial Theocracy) though ultimately it intended Chriſt. Now, this being ſo, the Sichemites or any other nations who would have taken God for their Soveraign, and come under this ſpecial prophetical Theocracy, (which Circumciſion engaged them to as reſpecting the Laws to which it bound them) had been ſo far united to Iſrael. But how far might this have extended? To the reſt that he ſaith I conſent. If you will not hold to this you muſt ſay that the Sichemites were to be of the ſame Communitie with Iſrael, and not of the ſame Republick, which ſignifieth either ungoverned Communities or various Republicks confederating.
SECT. VII.
R. B. IN Heſters time many of the people became Jews, Heſt. 8.17. who yet were not under their government. And to be Jews is to be of the Jewiſh profeſſion. And it is well known that this was to be circumciſed, they and their little ones (as the Proſelytes were) and ſo to keep the Law of Moſes.
Mr. T's Anſwer. — They were incorporated into the Jewiſh people, &c.
Reply. This needeth no reply but what is given to the former.
SECT. VIII.
R. B. THE ſcattered and captivated Jews themſelves were from under the Government of Abrahams ſucceſſors, and yet were to Circumciſe their children as Church-members.
Mr. T's Anſwer is the ſame, and the Reply the ſame.
SECT. IX.
R. B. WHen Jonas preached to Ninive, it was all the race of man among them, without exception, from the greateſt to the leaſt, that was to faſt and join in the humiliation: Ergo, all, even Infants as well as others, were to partake of the remiſſion. If you ſay, the beaſts were to faſt too: I anſwer, as they were capable in their kind of part of the curſe, ſo were they of part of the benefit, but their capacity was not as mans: They faſted to manifeſt mans humiliation. And if by the humiliation of the aged the beaſts ſped the better in their kind, no wonder if Infants ſped the better in theirs, and according to their capacities, and that was to have a remiſſion ſuitable to their ſin.
Mr. T's Anſwer. Neither aged nor infants were viſible Church-members, &c.
Reply. This only proveth by parity of Reaſon, their capacity of it, and that they would have been ſuch, if they had truely turned to God: which yet I cannot ſay that many of them did not according to the terms of the Common Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noe, though they came not under the Covenant of peculiarity: And if ſo (as Repentance is to be interpreted in the beſt ſenſe till the contrary be proved) I leave it to the Reader, whether Gods laying on the Infants their ſhare (as capable) in the humiliation, imply not ſuch a ſhare as they are capable of in the benefit? And the caſe of the Iſraelites Infants ſheweth what they were capable of. Mr. T's denial is no diſproof.
SECT. X.
R. B. WHat I have ſaid of Sem and many others, and their poſterity already, I ſhall not here again repeat: and more will be ſaid anon to the following queſtions.
Mr. T's Anſwer is none, and needs no Reply.
SECT. XI.
R. B. THE ſecond propoſition to be proved is, … Iſraelites children were … of …he u…verſal viſible Church of Chriſt as well …s … the Congregation of Iſrael] But this you did heretofore acknowledge, and therefore I ſuppoſe will not now deny. I ſuppoſe it paſt controverſie between us; 1. That Chriſt had then a Church on earth. As Abraham ſaw Chriſts day and rejoyced, and Moſes ſuffered the reproach of Chriſt, Heb. 11.26. and the Prophets enquired of the ſalvation by Chriſt, and ſearched diligently, and propheſied of the grace to come; and it was the ſpirit of Chriſt which was in thoſe Prophets ſignifying the time, and teſtifying beforehand the ſufferings of Chriſt, and the glory that ſhould follow, 1 Pet. 1.10, 11. So were they part of the Church of Chriſt, and members of the body of Chriſt, and given for the edification of that body: Though it was revealed to them that the higher priviledges of the Church after the coming of Chriſt, were not for them but for us, 1 Pet. 1.12.2. I ſuppoſe it agreed on alſo between us, that there was no true Church or Eccleſiaſtical worſhipping ſociety appointed by God in all the world ſince the fall, but the Church of Chriſt, and therefore either Infants were members of Chriſts Church, or of no Church of Gods inſtitution. Moſes Church and Chriſts Church according to Gods inſtitution were not two, but one Church. For Moſes was Chriſts Ʋſher, and his ceremonies were an obſcurer Goſpel to lead men to Chriſt: And though the fooliſh Jews by miſ-underſtanding them made a ſeparation, and made Moſes Diſciples to be ſeparate from Chriſts Diſciples, and ſo ſet up the alone [ſhadows of things to come, yet the body is all of Chriſt] Col. 2.17. and by ſo doing they violated Gods inſtitution, and unchurcht themſelves. 3. I ſuppoſe it agreed alſo, that Chriſts Church is but one, and that even thoſe of all ages that are not at once viſible, yet make up one body. 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the univerſal. (Though the Church was more eminently called Catholick, when the wall of ſeparation was taken down.) But I remember I have proved this in my Book, part. 1. chap. 20. and therefore ſhall ſay no more now.
Mr. T's Anſwer. The two firſt are granted. To the third, Though whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the univerſal; yet it follows not, (which Mr. B. drives at, and vainly talks of his proving) that every one who was a member of the univerſal Church, in that he was a member of the Jewiſh Church. particular, was a viſible member of every particular viſible Church of Chriſt. 2. Nor that every one that was a member of the univerſal Church, in that he was a member of a viſible particular Church of Chriſt, was a viſible member of the Jewiſh particular Church, &c.
Reply. 1. None of this ever came into my thoughts which he untruly ſaith I drive at, &c. What ſober man could imagine either of theſe aſſertions? What pittiful abuſe of ignorant Readers is this? 2. And what a poor put off to the point in hand? That which I ſaid is but that all particular viſible Churches and members, make up one viſible univerſal Church, and therefore every viſible member of any particular Church is a member of the univerſal? He durſt not deny this, and yet a ſlander ſerveth his turn.
SECT. XII.
R. B. COncerning the matter of the third queſtion. I aſſert that [it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants wer… members, but of the Church diſtinct from it. This is proved ſufficiently in what is ſaid before.
Mr. T's Anſwer. As yet I find it not prove that the Jewiſh Church was diſtinct from the Common-wealth, or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of th… Common-wealth.
Reply. 1. It is only a formal and not a material diſtinction that I medled with: The formal reaſon of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ, at leaſt after the choice of Kings, when the Republick was conſtituted by a humane head: Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuſpie's Aarons Rod; If the Jews Common-wealth be ſpecified as a Theocracy from God the Soveraign, the Sichemites were of it, and other nations might. 2. But many ſay that ſome were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church, though not contrarily: And be they diſtinct or not, it ſufficeth me that Infants were of the Church.
SECT. XIII, XIV, XV, XVI.
R. B. MOreover, 1. Infants were Church-members in Abrahams family before Circumciſion, and after when it was no Common-wealth. So they were in Iſaacs, Jacobs, &c.
2. The baniſhed, captivated, ſcattered Jews, that ceaſed to be members of their Common-wealth, yet ceaſed not to be of their Church.
3. The people of the Land, that became Jews in Heſters time, joyned not themſelves to their Common-wealth: Nor the Sichemites.
4. Many Proſelytes never joyned themſelves to their Common-wealth.
Mr. T. affirmeth them all to have been Common-wealths.
Anſwer. The word being ambiguous may in a large ſenſe be extended to a family, and to a ſcattered people that have no Soveraign; but is not ſo uſually taken.
SECT. XVII.
R. B. THE Children of Abraham by Keturah, when they were removed from his family were not unchurched; and yet were no members of the Jews Common-wealth. But I ſhall take up with what is ſaid for this already, undertaking more largely to manifeſt it, when I perceive it neceſſary and uſeful.
Mr. T's Anſwer. Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched; at leaſt in reſpect of the Church of the Hebrews.
Reply. 1. What a wide gap doth that [at leaſt] make you, yet to ſay, They were a Church or no Church, as you pleaſe? 2. Reader, uſe Scripture but impartially, and in the fear of God, and I will leave it to thy Conſcience to judge whether it be credible, that when God had foretold that Abraham would command his children and houſhold after him to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18.19. and when Iſhmael, Keturahs children, and Eſau, were circumciſed by Gods command, and God had yet promiſed the Political peculiarities ſpecially to Iſaac, and Jacob, yet God would have all the grandchildren of Iſhmael, Keturah, Eſau to be uncircumciſed: and all their poſterity to ceaſe that uſage, as ſoon as they were out of Abrahams houſe: when yet Hiſtory aſſureth us that they long continued it: Or whether God would have them circumciſed and yet be no Church-members? Believe as evidence conſtraineth thee.
SECT. XVIII.
R. B. TO the fourth queſtion I aſſert that [1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant with God, by accepting his favour, and re-ingaging and devoting them to God, and ſo entring them ſolemnly Church-members.] And [2. there was a Covenant, promiſe or grant of God, by which he offered the Church-memberſhip of ſome Infants and actually conferred it, where his offer was accepted.] I ſhould have mentioned this firſt, and therefore will begin with the proof of this. By theſe terms Covenant, promiſe, grant, or deed of gift, &c. we underſtand that which is common to all theſe, viz. [A ſign of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in ſome benefit] ſuch as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as diſtinct from a mere Phyſical act of diſpoſal. I call it [a ſign of Gods will de jure] becauſe …hat is the general nature of all his legal moral acts: they are all ſignal determinations de debito, …f ſome due. 2. I ſay conferring or confirming …ight to ſome benefit] to difference it from pre…epts which only determine what ſhall be due from us to God, and from threatnings, which determine what puniſhment ſhall be due from God to us.
Mr. T. — If we prove by another grant or deed of gift Phyſical or Moral which is not a promiſe, or by any Law which is not ſuch a precept, he contradicts not my ſpeech, &c.
Reply. Your words are [I do not confeſs that there was any Law or Ordinance determining that it ſhould be ſo (that Infants ſhould be members of the Jewiſh Church) but only a fact of God which is a tranſeunt thing, and I think it were a fooliſh undertaking to prove the repeal of a fact.] Peruſe his words Reader.