More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 29,39
SECT. XXIX, to XXXIX.
R. B. IN conſideration of the ſeventh Queſtion, I ſhall conſider the nature and effect of the tranſeunt fact which you here deſcribe. And firſt of the reaſon of that name. You ſay that you call it [tranſeunt] [becauſe done in time and ſo not eternal, and paſt and ſo not in congruous ſenſe repealeable as a law, ordinance, ſtatute, decree which determines ſuch a thing ſhall be for the future.] And do you think this the common ſenſe of the word? or a fit reaſon of your application of it to the thing in hand?
I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts, and yet not eternal.
We uſe to contradiſtinguiſh tranſeunt acts from immanent, and that becauſe they do tranſire in ſubjectum extraneum.
But it ſeems you take them here as diſtinct from permanent.
But uſe your ſenſe as long as we underſtand it.
If it be only [paſt] actions which you call [tranſeunt] it ſeems your long fact which was ſo many hundred years in doing, was no tranſeunt fact till the end of all thoſe years; and ſo did not (by your own doctrine) make any Church-members till the end of thoſe years.
But, Sir, the Queſtion is not, whether it were a tranſeunt fact that laid the foundation by legiſlation or promiſe-making; but whether the effect were tranſeunt, or the act as it is in patiente: Whether the law were tranſeunt which was made by a tranſeunt fact? and whether the moral action of that law were permanent or tranſeunt? it being moſt certainly ſuch a moral act that muſt produce a title, or conſtitute a duty. Gods writing the ten Commandements in ſtone was a fact ſoon paſt, but the law was not ſoon paſt, nor the moral act of that law, viz. obligation. There are verbal laws, that have no real permanent ſign: and yet the law may be permanent, and the obligation permanent, becauſe the ſign may have a permanency in eſſe cognito, and ſo the ſignifying vertue may remain by the help of memory, though the word did vaniſh in the ſpeaking.
When you come to point out this tranſeunt fact individually, you ſay [it is Gods taking the whole people of the Jews for his people,] which you term [fact] as conceiving it moſt comprehenſive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accompliſh it.] 1. I did not well underſtand before that [a fact] did ſo vaſtly differ from an [Act,] as to contain the acts (rather than the facts) of many generations.
This is a long fact according to your meaſure, even from Abrahams call out of Ur: but how long it ſeems you are not well agreed with your ſelf. For in the firſt part of your Letter you enumerate to the other acts that compoſe this fact [the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, giving them laws, ſetling their Prieſthood, Tabernacle, Army, Government, Inheritance:] But before you end, you change your mind, and ſay [the Church-memberſhip of the Iſraelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call, and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4.] But ſure that was long before the ſetling their inheritance. Your fact according to your laſt account was about 437. years in doing; but according to your firſt opinion, it was about 470. years long.
If it were one individual fact of about 470. years long that made Infants Church-members, then they could not be Church-members till that fact was paſt, For the effect is not before the cauſe, or cauſality of the efficient; the relation cannot be before the fundamentum be laid: and it ſeems this long fact was the laying of the fundamentum: But the conſequent is certainly falſe; for Infants were Church-members before the end or compleating of your long fact: For they were Church-members (you'l grant) when Iſhmael and Iſaac were circumciſed. Ergo, it was not this long fact that made them Church-members.
If you mean that it was not the whole, but ſome part of this long fact that actually made Infants Church-members, then you would have aſſigned that part, when that was the thing deſired, and which you pretended exactly to perform; or at leaſt you would not have told us it comprehended all theſe acts.
And if each particular act did make Infants Church-members, or lay a ſufficient ground of it, then it ſeems that it was done before the inſtitution of Circumciſion. For Gods calling Abraham out of Ur was before it. So that the Children born in his houſe muſt be Church-members upon that; and a ſufficient ground laid for his own to have been ſuch, if he had then had a natural iſſue: And it ſeems then that Iſhmael was born a Church-member many years before Circumciſion.
If this be your meaning, I pray you be ſo juſt and impartial as to accept of the proof which I ſhall give you of Infants Church-memberſhip before Abrahams days, if I make it appear to be as ſtrong as this call of Abraham from Ur.
If you ſhould mean that ſome one of theſe comprehended acts ſhould of it ſelf make any Infants Church-members, then it muſt be any one; for you no more aſſign it to one of them than to another, (only ſay [chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt:] But ſurely ſome of theſe acts particularly cannot do it, as the leading to Padan Aram, the removal to Canaan, to Aegypt, placing, preſerving there, ſetling their Army, &c. Did any one of theſe make Infants to become Church-members?
Nay, ſuppoſe you mean that all theſe acts muſt concur to make them members, (and ſo that they were no members till many hundred years after the inſtitution of Circumciſion,) yet could not your Doctrine hold good: For ſome of theſe acts are of an alien nature, and no more apt to cauſe infant Church-memberſhip, than a Bull to generate a Bird. What aptitude hath the ſetling of an Army to be any part of the cauſation of Infants Church-memberſhip? None, I think; at leaſt if it be ſuch an Army as ours: For ſurely the ſetling of ours cauſed no ſuch thing, as you well know. What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram, or removal to Aegypt, to make Infants Church-members? Nay, how ſtrange is it, that the removing of Church-members, and ſuch as had been Infant Church-members, as Iſhmael, Keturahs children, Eſau, muſt cauſe Infant Church-memberſhip? Sure it was no cauſe of their own. Keturahs children were Church-members in infancy: I enquire of you by what act they were made ſuch? You ſay [by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people] whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part. Very good. It ſeems then that removing from the Congregation of Iſrael a people of the Jews, is a taking of the removed to be of that people: or elſe it is not only the taking that people, but alſo the removal from that people that maketh Church-members, even the removed as well as the taken, both which are alike abſurd.
And I pray you tell me yet a little better, how an act can make a man a Church-member that was one long before that was done? You cannot here ſay, that it was before in eſſe morali, and had a moral cauſation. How then could your chiefeſt act, the bringing out of Aegypt, make thoſe Infants Church-members that were born in Aegypt, and were Church-members before? Or how could it be any part of the cauſe? Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moſes a Church-member when he was in the basket on the waters? And when you anſwer this, you may do well to go a little further, and tell me, how ſuch an act concurreth to make him an Infant Church-member that was dead an hundred or two hundred years before that act was done. For example, how did the ſetling of the Iſraelites Army, or Inheritance, or the Covenant on Mount Sinai, make Iſhmael, or Eſau, or Iſaac, or Jacob Church-members?
I deſire you alſo to tell me by the next, what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all theſe acts of 430. years at leaſt together, ſo as to make them one fact? And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact ſufficient for this purpoſe of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years only? And whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Chriſt to be one fact, and aſſign it to this office?
You ſay that you call this fact [tranſeunt] becauſe it's [paſt,] (and ſo till it's [paſt] it ſeems Iſaac and Jacob that were dead before, are no Chruch-members;] I would then fain know whether it be this ſame tranſeunt fact, or ſome other, that makes Infants Church-members five hundred years after it is paſt? If it be this ſame, then how comes a meer tranſeunt fact to work effectually ſo many hundred years after it is paſt? unleſs it made a Law or Covenant which doth the deed? If it be a new tranſeunt fact that muſt make Infants Church-members after the compleating of this (the ſetling their inheritances;) then I pray you let me know, whether it …e one fact exerciſed on the whole nation in groſs, or muſt it be a fact upon every Infant member individually? If on the nation, remember to tell us what it was; and do not only tell us the cauſe of the memberſhip of former Infants. And ſeeing it muſt be ſuch as the memberſhip of every Infant till Chriſts time at leaſt muſt be cauſed by, I pray you remember to make your work ſquare and full, and be ſure to aſſign us no other kind of fact, than what you will prove to have been ſo frequently repeated in every age, and ſo fully extenſive to every Infant among the Jews, as that it have no gaps, but may make all members that were ſo in each age. And remember, that it is no law, precept, promiſe or covenant that you muſt aſſign for the cauſe; for that is it you are engaged againſt: but a conſtant ſucceſſion of tranſeunt facts extending to each individual member. O what work have you made your ſelf? and what a ſort of new political Doctrine ſhall we have from you, when theſe things are accompliſhed according to the frame you have begun? Such as I believe the Sun never ſaw, nor the wiſeſt Lawyer in England ever read before? Which makes me the leſs marvel that ſo many of your opinion are ſo much againſt the Lawyers; for I dare ſay they will be but few of them for you, if theſe be your grounds, or at leaſt not for theſe your grounds.
Reply. To all this I find nothing ſaid by Mr. T. that I think worthy the Readers trouble to reply to: Let him read it and ſee. His charge of [fooliſh exclamations, vanity, &c.] I paſs by.