More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 46
SECT. XLVI.
R. B. THe next Inſtitution of Infants Church-memberſhip, was at the firſt proclamation of grace to fallen man, or in the firſt promiſe of redemption to ſinners, in Gen. 3.15. [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy ſeed and her ſeed: it ſhall bruiſe thy head, and thou ſhalt bruiſe his heel.] I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promiſe doth declare it to be the will of God that Infants ſhould be Church-members: And to this end, let us firſt conſider what the words expreſly contain, and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illuſtrate them. It being a known rule, that an Expoſitor muſt not turn univerſals into ſingulars or particulars, nor reſtrain and limit the Scripture generals, where the word it ſelf or the nature of the ſubject doth not limit them, I may well conclude that theſe things following are comprehended in this fundamental promiſe. 1. That the Devil having plaied the enemy to mankind, and brought them into this ſin and miſery, God would not leave them remedileſs, nor to that total voluntary ſubjection to him as he might ha…e done: But in grace or undeſerved mercy would engage them in a war againſt him, in which they that conquered ſhould bruiſe his head. 2. That in this war the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the principal ſeed, is promiſed to be our General, whoſe perfect nature ſhould contain, and his perfect life expreſs a perfect enmity againſt Satan, and who ſhould make a perfect conqueſt over him. 3. The Lord Jeſus is promiſed to do this work as the womans ſeed, and ſo as conceived of her, and born by her, and ſo as an Infant firſt, before he comes to ripeneſs of age. So that here an Infant of the woman is promiſed to be the General of this Army, and Head of the Church. This is moſt evident: By which God doth ſanctifie the humane birth, and the Infant ſtate, and aſſure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church, which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation. For the firſt promiſe is of an Infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church, and growing up to maturity, to do the works of a Head. Had God excluded the Infant ſtate from the viſible Church he would not have made the Head firſt an Infant. Where note, 1. That Chriſt is the great exemplar of his Church; and in things which he was capable of, he did that firſt in his own body, which he would after do in theirs. 2. That the Head is a Member, even the principal Member, one of the two parts which conſtitute the whole. As the pars imperans and pars ſubdita do conſtitute each Common-wealth. So that if an Infant muſt be a member eminently ſo called, then Infants are not excluded from memberſhip, but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature. If an Infant may be Soveraign, no doubt he may be a Subject. If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church, then no doubt but Infants may be Diſciples. If you ſtill harp on the old ſtring, and ſay, They are no Diſciples that learn not; you may as well ſay, He is no Prophet that teacheth not. And if you will openly deny Chriſt in Infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church, I will undertake to prove the falſhood and vileneſs of that opinion, as ſoon as I know you own it. The promiſe then of an Infant Head, doth declare Gods mind that he will have Infants members, becauſe the head is the principal member.
Mr. T. The thing to be proved is a Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed,
Reply. The thing I am to do, is to ſhew you when and how God inſtituted Infants Church ſtate; And that he never had a Church on earth that excluded them: And particularly to ſhew you that they are included in the firſt edition of the Covenant of Grace made to Adam, which is perfected in a ſecond edition, but not repealed. This I think I have done.
Mr. T. addeth that It will not hold from Chriſts Headſhip in Infancy, &c. 1. It is not declared in Scripture, and ſo a meer phan…y: 2. Then an Infant in the womb ſhould be a viſible member, becauſe then Chriſt was Head of the Church: 3. Then an old man ſhould not be a member; for Chriſt was not an old man.
Reply. 1. Irenaeus thought it would hold who giveth this reaſon of it: And I leave the Reader to conſider whether the words cited prove it not. Sure I am, it greatly ſatisfieth my judgement, that God hereby declared his will to include Infants in his Church viſibly. For the Head is a Member, even the nobleſt: Therefore one Infant is confeſſed by you to be a viſible member of the Church: And if one, it will be incumbent on you to prove the reſt uncapable or excluded. When I read that Chriſt came not into the world at the ſtatute that Adam did, but choſe to be an Infant, and to be perſecuted in Infancy, and to have Infants murdered for his ſake firſt, and to invite and uſe them as he did, it is not the rowling over of your weariſom dry denials and confident abſurdities, that will perſwade me that Chriſt ſhutteth out all Infants. And I am ſure that the Inſtance confuteth your common exceptions againſt Infants; As that they are not Diſciples becauſe they learn not, which yet they may be in the ſame ſenſe as Chriſt was their Maſter in infancy when he Taught not: And that their Infancy did not incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God, to be Chriſtians, to be Church-members, &c. Chriſt ſhewed, in that in Infancy he bore all the Counter-relations, and was in the Covenant of God as Mediator: and that (as far as we can judge) only by a virtual and not actual conſent (in his Infancy and humane nature) to the Covenant of mediation.
Mr. T. ſaith, [Then an Infant in the womb may be a Church-member] —
Reply. Yes, in the ſame ſenſe as Chriſt in the womb was the Churches head: not by the ſolemn Inveſtiture of Baptiſm, but by Conſent: For believing Parents do dedicate their children to God intentionally when they are in the womb: But a man would think that you your ſelf ſhould acknowledge that this dedication and ſo the viſibility of memberſhip, hath its gradations to perfection: Are not your proſelytes viſible members in one degree, when they openly profeſs Chriſtianity (as Conſtantine did) and in a further degree when baptiſed? The intereſt of your opinion puts frivolous reaſons into your mind which a child might ſee through.
Mr. T. addeth, [Then an old man ſhould not be a member.]—
Reply. Could you think now that you did not cheat your poor Reader, if partiality had not ſhut one of your eyes? It will follow, from the affirmative, that ſuch a ſtate of life which Chriſt undertook is lawful, ſuch words which he ſpoke, ſuch deeds which he did are lawful, becauſe he did them (being not proper to the Mediator:) But will it thence follow from the negative, that no calling, no thoughts, no words, no deeds are lawful which Chriſt uſed not? A ſingle man that hath no Wife or Children may be proved capable of Church-memberſhip, becauſe Chriſt that was ſuch was the chief Church-member, that is, the head: But will it follow that a married man therefore may be none? Chriſts example will prove that a child of God may ſeem forſaken, may be crucified as a Malefactor: but not that no other are Gods children.
Mr. T. I deny not that Chriſt in infancy was head of the Church, nor that he was the Prophet of the Church in Infancy, underſtanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by deſignation, nor that he in ſome reſpect, to wit, of Rule and protection, was the head of the viſible Church, even of that part which is not elect: yet I deny that in reſpect of that union which makes any members of his body, in the Scripture acceptions which is by his ſpirit, he is the head of that part of the viſible Church which is not elect.
Reply. 1. And will not the Reader be ſatisfied with theſe conceſſions? Mark Reader, that he granteth that Chriſt an Infant was the Churches head, and thus far as he mentioneth of the Church viſible, and that he was the Prophet of the Church, becauſe he was ſo habitually and by deſignation: Why, even ſo it is that we ſay an Infant may be a Member, a Diſciple, a Chriſtian habitually and by deſignation, (though I would uſe a fitter word here than habitually:) If this much be a reaſon for the denomination in one, why not in the other? Yield Sir, or be not angry with Mr. Gataker.
2. And then what brought in your denial of ſpiritual memberſhip to the non-elect? Would you have made your Reader believe that it was any thing to the queſtion? And when will you prove that neither 1 Cor. 12. nor any other Scripture calleth thoſe members that have but ſuch common gifts of the ſpirit, as tongues, miracles, prophecie, &c. rejected Matth. 7.23. And that Chriſt never talkt in John 15. of branches in him not bearing fruit, and ſome cut off from him and withered. I am ſure it was a whole Church viſible that had carnal contentious wranglers againſt the Apoſtles in it, and men that were drunk at the Lords ſupper, &c. of whom Paul ſaith 1 Cor. 12.15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27. that they were the Body of Chriſt and members in particular, and common gifts are mentioned as their Character. —
Mr. T. That the humane birth and infant ſtate is ſanctified (by Chriſts) is not true: for then it would be holy to all, —
Reply. I deny your conſequence. There are ſeveral cauſes concur to the ſame ſanctification: Chriſts Birth and Infancy are but a remote preparatory cauſe, of powerful ſanctification, which is ever to individual perſons; as all things are pure to the pure, and when they are capable ſubjects, by natural exiſtence and Parents conſent, then from all the cauſes together reſults the holineſs of that ſtate: As Chriſts death and merits ſanctifie us, but not immediately nor alone. But Divines uſe to take this word [ſanctifying] in an initial preparatory ſenſe, as it ſignifieth the making of ſuch a thing or ſtate fit for holy uſe: As Temples and Utenſils are ſaid to be ſanctified, when deſigned to be uſed holily (before the uſe.) But muſt they therefore be ſo uſed by all? No, but by the Prieſts and Worſhippers? So they uſe to ſay, that Death and the Grave are ſanctified by Chriſt: How? Not to all, or any of the ungodly: But the curſe is taken off, and they are hallowed for the holy advantage of the faithful. So is it as to his Birth and Infancy.
Mr. T. Nor do I conceive any truth but groſs falſhood in that ſpeech [Had God excluded the Infant ſtate from the viſible Church, he would not have made the Head firſt an Infant] For this doth ſuppoſe this the only end or chief end — and more in Gods eye than the ſaving of ſinners —
Reply. I prove that groſs falſhood to be true, thus:
That ſtate or age which God viſibly included and actually made the chief viſible Church-member in, he did not exclude from the viſible Church: But the Infant ſtate God viſibly included, and actually made the chief viſible Church-member in▪ Therefore the Infant ſtate God did not exclude from the viſible Church.
The reaſon of the Major is becauſe to include and exclude are contraries. The Minor he confeſſeth. If he ſay that it may be included and excluded in ſeveral perſons, I anſwer, I here ſpoke but of the State or Age of Infancy as ſuch, to prove that qua talis an Infant is not excluded: For if qua talis, then it will hold ad omnes univerſally, and then Chriſt had been excluded: And therefore the Age is not excluded as ſuch, if included in one: For it muſt be a total excluſion: And therefore if he will prove our Infants excluded, it muſt not be qua tales as Infants, but for ſome other reaſon, (when he c…n find it) and ſo the Age or ſtate is not excluded.
2. But what man elſe could have gathered, that then this muſt be the only or chief end, and more in Gods eye than the ſaving of a ſinner? Is there any more included in the aſſertion than barely that [God would not have made an Infant the chief member if he would have excluded Infants as Infants?] Who c…uld hence have found out that God hath various degrees of intention? And we muſt diſpute which is chiefly in his eye: and that this was only or chiefly in his eye more than ſaving ſinners. Let them diſpute what is chiefly in Gods eye, that can better diſtinguiſh of thoſe volitions which are all but his ſimple eſſence; but let them do it on better reaſons than theſe.
Mr. T. I deny that Chriſt as man in infancy was the Prophet of his Church viſibly, and in actu exercito: Let Mr. …. when he will aſſault, there will appear in his contradiction vileneſs and manifold falſhoods.
Reply. That one little [and] was cunningly put in to bring you off; by taking viſibility and exerciſe conjunctly: But are your followers ſo critical as to diſcern the knack? 1. Neither do we ſay that Infants are learners in actu exercito; and ſo what is this to the matter? 2. But Reader I can prove to thee if thou be impartial, though not to Mr. T. that it is neither vile nor falſe that Chriſt in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church viſibly, (though not in actu exercito:)
That which was declared by Angels from Heaven, and by revelation to Mary, Zacchary, Anna, Symeon, and by Prophecie by them to others, is to be called viſible: But that Chriſt was the Head and Prophet of the Church, (habitually and by deſignation as Mr. T. calls it) was thus declared — Ergo —
Mr. T. And for his inference, If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church, then no doubt but Infants may be Diſciples, I grant both: and yet deny that Chriſt was viſibly, audibly, in actu exercito, in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church, or that any Infants are actually Diſciples viſibly, till they hear the Goſpel and profeſs the faith: Nor am I a…hamed to aver that he is no Prophet that propheſieth not, that they are no Diſciples that learn not.
Reply. Reader thou art not the perſon that I write for, if thou perceive not here his cauſe notoriouſly given up, and yet a noiſe of words uſed ſhamefully to hide what he is forced to confeſs.
1. He granteth both that an Infant may be (and was) the chief Prophet of the Church, and Infants may be Diſciples. 2. This is it that we diſpute for which he expreſly granteth. 3. He denyeth the ſaid Relation titles as in actu exercito, and ſo do we; that is, that Chriſt then propheſied, and Infants learn or believe. 4. He talks confidently in this denial, as if he would have fools believe that this were the difference, and we held the contrary. 5. But he is fain to juggle in the word [audibly] joyned to [viſibly] for a paltry ſubterfuge, that if we prove Chriſt viſibly the Prophet, we may not prove him audibly ſo. 6. Yet it is ſuch a [viſibility] as [maketh one known] that he had in hand; and before denied the [viſibility:] as here; but if you prove that Chriſt was viſibly the Prophet, he can ſay [but not audibly] If you prove that he was audibly ſo, in that Angels and Prophets audibly declared it, he can ſay [but not in actu exercito] and by his own Propheſying; which none denieth. 7. And yet in the end he expreſly without diſtinction denieth him to be any Prophet that Propheſieth not, or them any Diſciples that learn not, when he had in terminis granted the contrary before, and muſt needs therefore grant and deny by diſtinction. In ſumm, our cauſe is expreſly granted us (and expreſly denied) we plead for no other kind of memberſhip to Infants, but ſuch as Chriſt had, nor for any other ſort of viſibility, than the viſibility of their being the ſeed of perſons conſenting to Gods Covenant, and Gods expreſſed will in his word, that they ſhould be offered to him by conſenting Parents, and that he will accept them, and did conditionally firſt conſent.