More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 39,44
SECT. XXXIX, to XLIV.
R. B. BƲt all this yet is but a light velitation: The principal thing that I would enquire into, is, what your great comprehenſive fact is in the true nature of it, which you call [Gods taking the whole people of the Jews to be his people.] Doth the word [taking] ſignifie a meer phyſical taking or fact; or a moral, ſuch as among men we call, a civil action? If it be a meer phyſical taking, then, 1. It cannot produce a moral effect, ſuch as that in queſtion is. 2. And then it muſt have an anſwerable object, which muſt be individual exiſtent perſons. 3. And then you cannot call it one fact, but many thouſand: even as many as there were perſons taken in to the Jews in above four hundred years. 4. And then what was the phyſical act which is called Gods taking? was it ſuch a taking as the Angel uſed to Lot, that carried him out of Sodom; or as the Apocryphal Author mentions of Habakkuk, that was taken by the hair of the head, and carried by the Angel into another Country, to bring Daniel a meſs of Pottage? If God muſt by a phyſical apprehenſion take hold of them that he makes Church-members, we ſhall be at a loſs for our proof of their Church-memberſhip. But I cannot imagine that this is your ſenſe. But what is it then? Is it a phyſical action though a moral cauſation of ſome phyſical effect? That it cannot be: For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire after. It neceſſarily remains therefore that this be a political moral taking that you here ſpeak of. And if ſo, then the tranſeunt fact you ſpeak of muſt needs be a civil or political action. And what that can be, which is no Law, Promiſe or Covenant in this caſe, I pray you beſtow ſome more diligence to inform us, and not put us off with the raw name of a tranſeunt fact oppoſed to theſe. Certainly, if it be a civil or legal action, the product or effect of it is jus or debitum, ſome due or right: And that is either, 1. A dueneſs of ſomewhat from us, (which is either ſomewhat to be done, or ſomewhat to be given;) 2. Or a dueneſs of ſomething to us, which is either of good or evil: If good, it is either by contract or donation (whether by a Teſtament praemiant Law, or the like:) if evil, it is either by ſome poenal Law, or voluntary agreement: Now which of theſe is it that your tranſeunt fact produceth? To be a member of the Church, is to be a member of a ſociety taking God in Chriſt to be their God, and taken by him for his ſpecial people. The act which makes each member, is of the ſame nature with that which makes the ſociety. The relation then eſſentially containeth, 1. A right to the great benefits of Gods ſoveraignty over men, Chriſts headſhip, and that favour, protection, proviſion and other bleſſings, which are due from ſuch a powerful and graciou Soveraign to ſuch Subjects, and from ſuch a Head to his Members: As alſo a right to my ſtation in the Body, and to the inſeparable benefits thereof. 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Chriſt, acknowledged and promiſed actually or virtually, really or reputatively. Now for the firſt, how can God be related unto me as my God, or Chriſt as my Saviviour, and I to him as one that have ſuch right to him and his bleſſings, by any other way than his own free gift? This gift muſt be ſome ſignification of his will: For his ſecret will is not a gift, but a purpoſe of giving. This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action, which is a ſignifying of the Donors will; and can be by no way, but either pure donation, contract, teſtament, or law. In our caſe it muſt needs partake of the nature of all theſe. It is not from one in any equality, nor capable of any obliging compenſation or retribution from us. Being therefore from an abſolute diſ-engaged Benefactor, it muſt needs be by pure donation, or it cannot be ours. Yet as he is pleaſed as it were to oblige himſelf by promiſe, or by his word, and alſo to call us to a voluntary acceptance, and engagement to certain fidelity, gratitude and duty, …nd ſo is the ſtipulator, and we the promiſers in the latter part of the action: it is therefore juſtly called a contract or Covenant, though indeed the word [Covenant] frequently ſignifieth Gods own promiſe alone. As it proceedeth from the death of the teſtator (in natural moral-reputative being,) ſo it is called a teſtament. And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor, giving this benefit to the governed, to promote the ends of government, and obliging to duty thereby, ſo it partaketh of the nature of a law. The commoneſt Scripture name for this act, is Gods Covenant or Promiſe, and ſometimes his gift; which all ſignifie the ſame thing here. It follows therefore, that either by Gods [taking Iſrael to be his people] you mean ſome civil political action, as a Covenant, Promiſe, or the like collation of the benefit, (and then you aſſert the thing which you deny,) or elſe you know not what you mean, nor can make another know it, without the diſcovery of the groſſeſt abſurdity. And as for the other thing which is contained in Church-memberſhip, the profeſſed duty of man to God, it is moſt certain, 1. That Gods Law obligeth us to that duty: 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to conſent to the obligation, and ſo to re-engage themſelves: 3. That this actual conſent profeſſed doth therefore double the obligation. And thus by a mutual contract, Covenant or conſent (whereof our part is firſt required by a law,) is the relation of Church-memberſhip contracted. Now to lay by and deny all this, and give us the general naked name of [taking for Gods people,] is meerly deluſory, ſeeing that [taking] means this which you exclude, or it means nothing that is true and reaſonable. And therefore tell us better what it means.
As for the Texts you cite, Deut. 4.34. & Levit. 20.24, 26. 1 King. 8.53. Iſai. 43.1. In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people, or took them for his own, and founded the relation: but the natural actions whereby he reſcued them from the Aegyptian bondage and took them to himſelf or for his uſe, ſervice, and honour out of that land. But I think ſure they were his people, and all their Infants were Church-members before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking.
As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of ſeparation for Iſrael. 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him. 2. By local ſeparation of their bodies from others. It was the firſt that made them his people, and Church-members, and not the laſt: the laſt was only a favourable dealing with them as his beloved. The ſame I ſay to the other two Texts. Sure you cannot think that corporal ſeparation makes a Church-member. What if an Aegyptian that had no part in the Covenant had paſt out with the Iſraelies, and got with them through the Red Sea, do you think he had been therefore a Church-member? Suppoſe God had made no promiſe or covenant with Abraham or his ſeed, but only taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan, and thence into Aegypt, and thence into the Wilderneſs, and thence into Canaan again: Do you think this much had made them Church-members? Then if the Turks conquer Greece, or the Tartarians conquer China, they are become Church-members, becauſe this ſeems as great a temporal proſperity at leaſt. And I think it is paſt doubt, that Lot was a Church-member in the midſt of Sodom, and the Iſraelites in Aegypt before they were brought out, as truly as after.
As to Gen. 12.1. Acts 7.2. Nehem. 9.7. which you alſo cite, as there is not one of them that gives the leaſt intimation that Infant-Church-memberſhip then began, ſo I ſhall further enquire anon, whether they contain any Covenant or promiſe.
So Exod. 19.4, 5. hath no word that gives the leaſt intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Aegypt, did make Iſrael a Church, or the Infants or any others, members of it: But only that by fulfilling a former promiſe in the deliverance of a people formerly his own, he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies. The ſame I ſay of Levit. 11.45. Neh. 1.10. I will not believe yet, but that you believe your ſelf, that the Iſraelites and their Infants were as truly Church-members before, as after their deliverance out of Aegypt. And me-thinks the Texts you cite might put it out of doubt. What if God ſay, Hoſ. 11.1. [When Iſrael was a child I loved him, and called my Son out of Aegypt.] Is it eaſie hence to prove that calling him out of Aegypt did make him his Son that was none before: or to prove that Iſrael was Gods Son before he called him out of Aegypt? If you ſhould maintain the former, I might expect that you ſhould ſay the like of Chriſt himſelf, to whom the Evangeliſt applieth this text; and ſo you may prove as fairly, that Chriſt was none of Gods Son till he was called out of Aegypt, but was made his Son by that call. Certainly the Text termeth him Gods Son that was called, as being ſo before that call. By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine, and try whether it be a tranſeunt fact, or a Law and Covenant, that made Infants and all others Church-members: and if they do not admire that ever a learned man ſhould harbour ſuch a conceit as yours, and that ever a godly man ſhould build ſuch a weight on it, and go ſo far on ſuch a ground, yea and that ever ordinary godly people ſhould be ſo blinded with ſuch palpable nonſenſe or abſurdities, then let them ſtill follow you in the dark; for I expect not that reaſon ſhould recover them.
Reply. To all this I find nothing ſaid that needeth any further reply.