More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 44,45
SECT. XLIV, XLV.
R. B. I Come now to the eighth Queſtion, that is to ſpeak to the point which you propounded. You urge me to cite to you the particular Texts that contain this Law, Ordinance, Precept or Covenant. To which I anſwer thus. 1. There are two ſorts of Laws; one which firſt make a duty; the other which ſuppoſe it ſo made, and do only call for obedience, and excite thereto, or preſcribe ſomewhat as a means in order thereunto. If I could ſhew you no written law or promiſe as firſt conſtituting the duty, or granting the priviledge of Church-memberſhip, it were not the leaſt diſparagement to my cauſe, as long as I can ſhew you thoſe following Laws which preſuppoſe this. You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of: Where then was Gods will manifeſted about ſuch things as this, but in tradition and nature? If Moſes then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition, and find all the Infants of Church-members in poſſeſſion of this benefit, then what need he make a new Law about it? Or why ſhould God promiſe it as a new thing? I confeſs if I ſhould find by any new law or promiſe that it did begin but in Moſes days, I ſhould think it ſome abatement of the ſtrength of my cauſe (though yet I think there would enough remain.) 2. There are (yet higher) two ſorts of laws: the one for the conſtitution of the Common-wealth it ſelf, the other for the adminiſtration or government of it when it is ſo conſtituted. The former are called by ſome, Fundamental Laws, as laying the frame and form of the Common-wealth, and the quality of the materials, &c. I think indeed, that as conſtitutive of the form of the Common-wealth, theſe are ſcarce properly called Laws; though as they look forward, obliging to duty, and prohibiting alteration, they may. But if they be not laws, they are ſomewhat higher, and lay the ground of all laws and obedience, and ſo are laws eminenter & virtualiter, though not actually and formally: And in our caſe, as this conſtitution did ſubject us to God, making it our duty ever after to obey him; ſo doth it oblige us to acknowledge that ſubjection. And the very conſtitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence, and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant. Now if this Covenant and conſtitution could not expreſly be ſhewed in writing, it were no diminution of the authority of it, ſeeing among men Fundamentals are ſeldom written; and when they are, it is only as Laws obliging the ſubject to maintain and adhere to the firſt conſtitution. As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that ſucceſſively Infants ſhould be Church-members, it no whit invalidates the cauſe if we could not ſhew the original conſtitution in writing. Yet ſomewhat we ſhall attempt. 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-memberſhip by Laws and Covenants concerning it, ever ſince the time that there was a written word of God: and that is ſufficient, if we could fetch it no higher. Having premiſed this, I come nearer to the Queſtion.
The firſt inſtitution of Infants Church-memberſhip de jure upon ſuppoſition of their exiſtence, was in Gods firſt conſtitution of the Republick of the world, when he became mans Governour, and determined of his ſubjects, and members of the Common-wealth: Which Republick being ſacred, and devoted to Gods worſhip and ſervice, was truly a Church of which God was head. This was performed by the firſt Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation. That ſuch a Covenant or promiſe of felicity was made by God to innocent man, almoſt all Divines agree: But becauſe it is rather implied than expreſſed in Moſes brief Hiſtory, ſome few cavillers do therefore contradict us. But, 1. The threatning of death for ſin, ſeems to imply a promiſe of life if he ſinned not. 2. And the New Teſtament affordeth us divers paſſages that yet plainlier prove it, which to you I need not recite. But whether this promiſe of life were natural (as the threatning of death was,) or only poſitive and more arbitrary, Divines are not agreed among themſelves. Thoſe that ſay it was free and poſitive, give this reaſon, That God could not naturally be obliged to bleſs or felicitate the moſt innocent or perfect creature, nor any creature merit of God. Thoſe that think it natural as the threatning was, ſay, it's true that God could not be properly obliged, becauſe he is under no Law, no more is he obliged to puniſh, but only man obliged to ſuffer if he inflict it: And it's true that man cannot ſtrictly merit of God. But yet, ſay they, as man may have a natural aptitude for ſuch felicity, ſo God hath a natural propenſity to do good according to the capacity of the ſubject, and his works do oblige him (improperly) in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word. So that their reaſons are theſe following. 1. Becauſe God is as naturally prone to do good to the good, as to do evil to the evil, that is, to reward as to puniſhment, as his name proclaimed to Moſes, Exod. 34. ſhews. 2. Becauſe God making man capable of a higher felicity, and principling him with inclinations thereto, and giving him deſires, love, and other affections for that bleſſed end, even the everlaſting fruition of God, therefore they ſay, God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect ſuch a felicity; if he ſinned not. For elſe all theſe inclinations and affection ſhould have been in vain: But God made not ſo noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciouſly and falſly. Alſo Gods works would not be harmonical: So that as Gods promiſe is but a ſign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability, ſo, ſay they, the nature of man was a ſign of Gods will ſo far engaging him: So that as he could not let-ſin go unpuniſhed without ſome breach in the harmony of his ſapiential frame of adminiſtration, no more could he deny to perfect man the object of thoſe deſires which he formed in him. So that although he might have made man ſuch a creature as ſhould not neceſſarily be puniſhed for evil, or rewarded for good, that is, he might have made him not a man; yet having ſo made him, it is neceſſary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty. 3. Our Philoſophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the ſoul from its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity. And if the immortality may be ſo proved from its nature, then alſo its felicity in caſe of righteouſneſs. I interpoſe not my ſelf as a Judge in this controverſie of Divines, but I have mentioned it to the end which I ſhall now expreſs. 1. It is moſt certain, whether the reward or promiſe be natural or poſitive, that ſuch a ſtate of felicity man was either in or in the way to, or in part and the way to more. And it is moſt certain, that man was made holy, devoted to God, and fit for his ſervice, and that in this eſtate according to the Law of his creation, he was to increaſe and multiply: It is moſt certain therefore, that according to the firſt law of nature, Infants ſhould have been Church-members. 2. But if their opinion hold, that make the reward grounded on the law of nature, and not on a meer poſitive law, (and you ſee the reaſons are not contemptible,) then the argument would be yet more advantagious. 3. But however it be of the title to glory or eternity, it is moſt certain, that according to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had ſtood. The firſt Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-memberſhip, as expreſſing its original de jure, is Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. [So God created man in his own Image — And God bleſſed them, and God ſaid unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and repleniſh the earth.] Here you ſee by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency, and ſo Church-members. And note, that the firſt bleſſing that God pronounceth on mankind, is, that they propagate Children in their own eſtate, to be as the Parents were, even in Gods Image.
Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-memberſhip, it proves not their viſible Church-memberſhip.
Reply. Mark Reader, that Gods Law and bleſſing for the propagation of Adams ſeed in his Image, would not have made them when born to be viſible Church-members, though members? What not ſo notorious a Law, and Covenant, and Benediction? No wonder if all Chriſtians Infants muſt be ſhut out, if Innocent Adams muſt have been ſhut out?
He adds, [2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance, yet not ſu…h a Law or Ordinance as is in queſtion; which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure, but de eventu, that ſo it ſhall be — they being to be actually viſible Church-members before admiſſion according to Mr. B's dictates.]
Reply. Alas, poor Readers, that muſt be thus wearied! I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that muſt have anſwerable cauſes: I know no Right given but it is eventually given, nor received but it's eventually received. Admiſſion is an ambiguous word: My dictates as he calls them, are 1. That Gods Law obligeth perſons to devote themſelves and their Infants to God, by conſenting to his Covenant for themſelves and them: 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the ſolemn Baptiſmal Covenanting Ordinance: 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiſeth to accept them, and ſignifieth his conſent to the mutual Covenant: which is antecedently to their conſent, but a conditional conſent or Covenant, but conſequently a…tual. 4. That accordingly natural intereſt only is not the Reaſon why a Believers Child is a Church-member, meerly becauſe he is his: BE God having given him power and obligation alſo to diſpoſe of his own Child for the ends of his Creation and Redemption, he is a Church-member initially upon heart-conſent; and by Inveſtiture upon Sacramental conſent: which I think you mean by Admiſſion.
3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove ſuch a Law or Ordinance, yet it proves it not ſuch a promiſe and precept as Mr. B. aſſerteth.
Reply. Muſt ſuch dealing as this go for an anſwer? What's the difference?
Mr. T. addeth, 4. If it did, yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature,—
Reply. You are hard put to it. I do by this firſt inſtance ſhew you where and when the Ordinance, Law or Grant of Infant Church-memberſhip was firſt made. And I leave it to any impartial Chriſtian whether I prove it not certain, that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an [Increaſe and Multiply] ſignifie not that Infants ſhould have been Holy to him, if Adam had not ſinned: and ſo have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God. Alas, many go ſo much further, as to aſſert as truth, that had Adam ſtood (nay but in that one temptation; yea ſay ſome, had he but once loved God) all his poſterity had not been only born Holy, but confirmed as the Angels: I cannot prove that: but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam ſinned, and ſo had been viſible members. And if ſo that God did found Infant memberſhip in Nature, let awakened reaſon think, whether Parents yet have not as much intereſt in children, and children in Parents, and then whether God have ever reverſt this natural order? Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it? It ſeemeth out of doubt to me.
I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt: but withal upon the promiſe of a Redeemer, [an univerſal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place] Let them deny it that can, and dare. And it intimateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct intereſt with their Parents.
He ſaith that [the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling, not birth.] I would deſire him if he can, to tell me, whether both Cain and Abel were not viſible Church-members in Adams family? And whether none but the Elect are viſible members? And whether God call not them that are viſible members to that ſtate?
He ſaith [If this Law be in force all are born without ſin.]
Reply. The Covenant of Innocency is not in force; but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force; and that Infants viſible Church-memberſhip was founded in Nature and that Law at firſt: And therefore though our Innocency be loſt, Parents are Parents ſtill; And if God change not his order therein, are as capable of conſenting to Grace for their Children, as they were of being innocent for them.