More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 22 – Section 23
SECT. XXII.
R. B. THE next thing in the antecedent to be proved is, that there was a right conferred to this benefit, and ſome had a right in it. And 1. If any had the benefit, then had they right to or in that benefit: But ſome had the benefit, Ergo. The conſequence of the major is certain. 1. Becauſe the very nature of the benefit conſiſteth in a right to further benefits. 2. If any had the benefit of Church-memberſhip, Covenant-intereſt, &c. without right; then they had it with Gods conſent and approbation or without it. Not with it: For he is juſt, and conſenteth not that any have that which he hath not ſome right to or in: Not without it: For no man can have a benefit from God againſt his will, or without it. 2. If no Infants had duly and rightfully received this benefit, God would have ſomewhere reprehended the uſurpation and abuſe of his ordinances or benefits. But that he doth not as to this caſe, Ergo. 3. God hath expreſſed this right in many Texts of Scripture, of which more afterward.
Mr. T. The Infants of the Jews were viſiſible Church-members, not by a Legal right to it, antecedent to their being ſuch viſible Church-members which they or any for them might claim as due: Nor was it capable of being duly and rightfully received or uſurped: For it was nothing but a ſtate of appearing to be part of that people, who were in appearance from things ſenſible, Gods people; and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people viſibly, viz. his forming them and bringing them into the world, and placing them, —
Reply. More myſtery ſtill! 1. Was there no antecedent Law or Covenant of God, giving a jus ſocietatis a Right of memberſhip to Abrahams ſeed as ſoon as they had a being initially, and commanding them to be devoted to God in Covenant, and Circumciſed, that they by inveſtiture might have a plenary Right? Was there no ſuch thing? O but [this gave them not a right to it before they had it.] Is the poor Church to be thus abuſed, and holy things thus played with? They could not be members before they had a being; nor could lay claim to it: But could not Gods Law, Grant or Inſtrumental Covenant be made before they were born? And could it not be the Inſtrument of conveying right to them as ſoon as they were born? that is, as ſoon as they were ſubjects capable? And is not the cauſe in order of nature, though not of time before the effect? Cannot the Law of the Land be the fundamental cauſe of the Right of Infants to Honours and Eſtates, though till they are in being they are not capable ſubjects? Is not the Action ut agentis naturally antecedent to it as in patiente? Is it only Gods tranſeunt fact of making them men and theſe men, and placing them in England, which maketh Infants to be members of the Engliſh Nobility, or Gentry or Citizens or members of this Kingdom? No; but it is the Laws that do morally give the Jus dignitatis, vel ſocietatis, though their action be not terminated in any ſubject till it exiſt. For every man born in England is not born a Lord, or Eſquire, or Citizen, no nor a free ſubject, unleſs the Law ſay it ſhall be ſo. If Foreigners or Rebels ſhould have children here, and the Law were that they ſhall be Aliens, they would be no members of the Kingdom. If Mr. T. or Mr. D's children have nothing but Generation, and being born in England to ſhew for their Inheritance, their Title will not hold.
2. And might not right have been falſly pleadded or uſurped by a counterfeit Jew? Or the children of ſuch? Or the children of Apoſtates? who yet were born of Abrahams ſeed, and in that Land? Whatſoever they were that Nehemiah uſed ſeverely, I am ſure Achans children, and the Infants of the Cities that were to be conſumed for Idolatry, loſt their right to life and Church-memberſhip at once by their Parents ſin: And God might if he had pleaſed, have continued the Life of Apoſtates children, without continuing their Church-right; Or Apoſtates might (and no doubt multitudes did) eſcape the juſtice of the Law through the fault of Magiſtrates or people, and yet have no true Legal Right to Church-memberſhip for themſelves or Infants (born after): For he that hath loſt his right to life, hath loſt his right (or may do) to the priviledges and benefits of it.
He addeth [yet I grant, they had a right in it, that is, that they had it by Gods donation.]
Reply. And was it not a Moral Donation then, if it gave Right? You will be forced thus to confute your ſelf.
Mr. T. It ſeems to me not true, that the nature of the benefit of Infants viſible memberſhip conſiſteth in a right to further benefits.
Reply. Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh ſo. If we are at this paſs about Relations and Right in general, no marvail if Infant Baptiſm go for Antichriſtian: Doth not the Relative ſtate of a Citizen, or of the member of any priviledged ſociety, conſiſt in his ſtate of Right to the Benefits, Priviledges and Communion of the Society, and an obligation to the duties of a member, to the end he may have the benefits, and the Society the benefit of his memberſhip and duty? A conjunction of Right (foreign) and obligation conſtituteth all ſuch Relations. But what ſhall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here?
Next Mr. T. denieth the conſequence, [For a man may have a benefit without right.]
Reply. 1. And yet juſt now, Church-memberſhip in Iſrael was a thing that none could uſurp, or have without right? 2. But I ſaid [no man can have a benefit from God againſt his will or without it:] And therefore if God give ſuch a thing as Church-memberſhip which conſiſteth in a Right to further benefits, he that hath it by Gods gift hath it rightfully: Natural effects (as a prey to a thief) may be ſaid to be given of God improperly, by Phyſical diſpoſal, to him that hath no right: But right it ſelf cannot be given to him that hath no right; nor any thing elſe, Relative or Natural, by Gods Moral or Covenant donation.
He [conceiveth it to be very erroneous that viſible Church-memberſhip is given out of diſtributive Juſtice; for as Regeneration, ſo alſo viſible memberſhip are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord, not of diſtributive Juſtice by God as Judge. 2. That all that any man hath of God he hath of debt, contrary to Rom. 4.4. 3. That viſible Church-memberſhip is conceived as a thing offered, and to be duly and rightfully received
Reply. If Mr. T. and I ſhall tire the Printer, and waſt Paper, and trouble the world, with telling them how many errors each of us hold, it will be an unſavory task, and I doubt it would be a much ſhorter work for one of us, (which ever it is) to enumerate the uſeful truths we hold. What I hold, be it right or wrong, I will tell the Reader as to this matter. I hold that Gods Kingdom is to be conſidered in its Conſtitution and Adminiſtration: The firſt hath, 1. The efficient, 2. The Conſtitutive, 3. The final Cauſes: And in the large ſenſe it containeth, 1. Subjects only by obligation, (ſuch as Rebels are) 2. Subjects by conſent, (or voluntary). The Efficient cauſe of the former is only Gods 1. Making them men, and Redeemed men quoad precium, and commanding their ſubjection or conſent. To the effecting of the ſecond is beſides theſe required their Actual Conſent (Parents conſenting for their Infants), without which they are but Rebels, and have no right to the benefits of the Society.
God being a King de jure before his Government is Conſented to, maketh a Law to man to command them to conſent and be his voluntary ſubjects: To thoſe that conſent (as the condition) he promiſeth the intereſt and bleſſings of his Covenant, viz. Chriſt and Life; and threatneth the privation of thoſe benefits, and ſorer puniſhment to refuſing rebels: He is Lawgiver and will be Judge of Non-conſenters; called, Ʋnbelievers and refuſers of Chriſt and Salvation: When men do conſent they are under his further Adminiſtring Laws. The ſaid efficient cauſes are Gods Actions, 1. As Omnipotent Owner, 2. As Benefactor, 3. As Sapiential Rector. 1. According to the firſt, he giveth us our Being and preſerveth it, and in him we Live, and Move, and Are. 2. As our Benefactor antecedent to his Adminiſtration, he gave the world a Redeemer abſolutely, and reprieved the world and us, and giveth us all common Antecedent Mercies. 3. As the Rector de jure of men not yet conſenting, he maketh the Law of Grace abſolutely and antecedently to any condition (of making it) on our part. This Law hath the preceptive part, commanding conſent (faith and repentance). 2. The Donative or promiſſory part, giving us Chriſt in Relation, and right to his preſent benefits, if we conſent; which is the condition. 3. And the penalty aforeſaid.
The Adminiſtration of the Kingdom de jure, is the efficient of the conſenting Kingdom: The Adminiſtration (or Actual Government) of the Conſenting Kingdom, is by Legiſlation, Judgement and Execution. And the Legiſlation is, 1. For the conſtitution of the particular members that ſhall from time to time be added: 2. And the Governing of them all.
Now if God have made a Law that men ſhall be received members of Chriſt and his Church if they conſent (or Repent and Believe) and formerly to the Iſraelites, if they be Conſenters (or their ſeed, who conſent by them) then it is an act of diſtributive juſtice of God as Judge, to give theſe benefits to Conſenters: And to contradiſtinguiſh an act of bounty unleſs he ſay [meer bounty] is intolerable. For God governeth us Paternally, as a Regent-benefactor: He never gave reward to a Creature, Man or Angel, which was not a Gift as to the value of the thing, and a Reward only as to the ordo conferendi & ratio recipiendi: It is madneſs to think that we can merit from God commutatively. And it's little better to think that bounty and diſtributive juſtice may not conſiſt; yea that there can be any right quoad ordinem diſtribuendi from that juſtice, which is not quoad rem donatam from bounty. It is ſad therefore that the world muſt ſee, that looking all how to make good an eſpouſed cauſe, ſhould tempt ſo Ancient and Learned a Divine to ſubvert the Goſpel and all Chriſtianity: For what doth he leſs? If he talk only of members by obligation, every living man is a member: This he meaneth not. If he talk only of Conſenting voluntary Members, to ſay that God commandeth none to be ſuch, is to ſay that he commandeth none to be Chriſtians, to Repent, Believe or Conſent: To ſay that he hath made no promiſe or Donative Act in the Law of Grace, that if you conſent (repent and believe) you ſhall have union with Chriſt and his Church (or be members) is to deny the very ſumm of all the Goſpel, and Baptiſm it ſelf. To ſay that God doth not as Judge execute his own Law and promiſe, giving this union to Conſenters, and denying it to Refuſers, is to ſay that he will not as a Judge abſolve Believers or condemn Ʋnbelievers. O Reader, hate faction and partial diſputes that can make men overthrow all Chriſtianity, not knowing what they do.
2. And his denying that viſible Church-memberſhip is a thing offered, and rightly to be accepted, is the ſame, even to deny that Chriſt inviteth any Infidel to become a Chriſtian, or ever called or commanded Heathens to believe: or ſent his Miniſters to compel them to come in, that his houſe may be filled.
But his ſlander that I ſay all that man hath from God is of debt, is forged groundleſly. I ſay God giveth ſome benefits antec…dently and abſolutely, and ſome conſequently on condition, by a Law: And none of them all are of debt as a workman deſerveth his wages with commutative juſtice.
It is his groſs error that viſible Church-memberſhip of Infants among the Jews was not a thing offered on condition of Parents faith, and to be accepted or refuſed; but a ſtate reſulting from Gods fact. He feigneth a Church to be formally quid Phyſicum ſure! He that would not conſent to the Covenant was by Aſa to be put to death: And was not Circumciſion a covenanting act? And did they not thereby profeſs to take God for their God? or would God elſe have taken them for his people? And would not renouncing God have cut them off? And would their ſeed then have had any right for being theirs? Indeed it is diſputable how far ſome Anceſtors, or other Proprietors might be a medium of right to ſuch Apoſtates ſeed: but as theirs, there is no diſpute.
SECT. XXIII.
R. B. I Am next to prove the conſequence, that [this right was conferred by ſome grant, promiſe, or Covenant of God.] And this is as eaſie as to prove that the world was made by Gods power and efficiency or will; or to prove that God is the owner of all things, and no man can receive them but by his gift. 1. If there be no other way poſſible for right to be conveyed from God to us, but only by his grant, promiſe, or Covenant, (which we call donation, and is a moral civil action,) then it is by this means that it is conveyed. But there is no other poſſible way of ſuch conveyance: Ergo, we have no right till God give us right. His will ſignified createth our right. No man can have right to that which is wholly and abſolutely anothers, but by his conſent or will. This will is no way known, but by ſome ſigns of it. Theſe ſigns of ſuch a will for conveyance of right to a benefit, are a civil moral action, called a donation or gift ſimply. If the ſign be in writing, we commonly call it a deed of gift. If it be by word of mouth, conferring a preſent right, we call it a verbal grant or gift. If it confer only a future right, we call it a promiſe, and ſometimes a Covenant; and ſometimes the word Covenant ſignifieth both, that act which gives a preſent right, and promiſeth a continuance of it. Right being a moral or civil thing, can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action. A gift that was never given, is a contradiction. So that this part of our controverſie is as eaſie as whether two and two be four.
Mr. T. Viſible Church-memberſhip is not a Right, but a ſtate of Being; as to be ſtrong, healthy, rich, &c. which are not given by a civil moral action, but by Providence of God acting Phyſically as the Soveraign diſpoſer of all. — I deny therefore that there is ſuch a promiſe —
Reply. Reader, it is not long of me that this Learned Ancient Divine knoweth not what a Church-member is, or elſe what is the difference between Ethicks, or Politicks, and Phyſicks. But it is our ſhame that a Preacher in England ſhould be ſound ſo ignorant. God as the Fountain of nature, and Omnipotent Lord of all, is indeed the firſt Cauſe of Being and Motion as ſuch: As a free Benefactor he is the firſt Cauſe of all our Good as ſuch; And as a Sapiential Rector, and Benefactor conjunctly (that is, by Paternal government) he is the firſt cauſe of Right.
Being and Motion are the effects of Phyſical efficiency: Jus vel Debitum is the very formal effect or object of Moral Efficiency by a Rector, and the formal object of Ethicks. To be a Church-member, is to have a ſtated Relation, conſiſting in Right to the Benefits and obligation to the duty, as was ſaid before. He denieth this to be any Right, and to have any ſuch Civil-moral cauſe as Right hath, but to be quid Phyſicum as Health, ſtrength, Riches, and an anſwerable Phyſical cauſe. Let the ſhame of this ignorance reform the common error of Schools that teach not their children betimes the principles of Ethicks, Politicks, or Governing Order: It is a ſhame that at 16. years old any ſhould be ſo ignorant as theſe words import. I muſt ſpeak it, or I comply with the powers of darkneſs, that ſo ſhamefully oppoſe the truth.