More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 53,58 – Section 60,61,62
SECT. LIII, to LVIII.
R. B. THe law of nature bindeth Parents in love to their children to enter them into the moſt honourable and profitable ſociety, if they have but leave ſo to do: But here Parents have leave to enter them into the Church, which is the moſt honourable and profitable ſociety. Ergo. That they have leave, is proved, 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this ſincerely, (the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it ſincerely;) and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in caſe of ſuch participation of benefits: As all laws of men in doubtful caſes are to be interpreted foreign, in the moſt favourable ſenſe. So hath Chriſt taught us to interpret his own: When they ſpeak of duty to God, they muſt be interpreted in the ſtricteſt ſenſe: When they ſpeak of benefits to man, they muſt be interpreted in the moſt favourable ſenſe that they will bear.
2. It is the more evident, that a not forbidding in ſuch caſes is to be taken for leave, becauſe God hath put the principle of ſelf-preſervation, and deſiring our own welfare, and the welfare of our Children ſo deeply in humane nature, that he can no more lay it by than he can ceaſe to be a reaſonable creature. And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exerciſe this natural neceſſary principle of ſeeking his own or childrens real happineſs, where-ever God doth not reſtrain or prohibit him. We need no poſitive command to ſeek our own or childrens happineſs, but what is in the law of nature it ſelf, and to uſe this where God forbiddeth not, if good be then to be found, cannot be unlawful.
3. It is evident from what is ſaid before (and elſewhere) that it is more than a ſilent leave of Infants Church-memberſhip that God hath vouchſafed us. For in the forementioned fundamental promiſe, explained more fully in after times, God ſignified his will that ſo it ſhould be. It cannot be denied, but there is ſome hope at leaſt given to them in the firſt promiſe, and that in the general promiſe to the ſeed of the woman they are not excluded, there be no excluding term. Ʋpon ſo much encouragement and hope then it is the duty of Parents by the law of nature to enter their Infants into the Covenant, and into that ſociety that partake of theſe hopes, and to liſt them into the Army of Chriſt.
4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children. But the relation of a member of Chriſts Church or Army, is an allowed or offered benefit to them, Ergo, &c. For the Major, theſe principles in the law of nature do contain it. 1. That the Infant is not ſui juris, but is at his Parents diſpoſe in all things that are for his good. That the Parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or ſuffering, that is certainly to their own good: and ſo may enter them into Covenants accordingly: And ſo far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the child. 2. That it is unnaturally ſinful for a Parent to refuſe to do ſuch a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own child. As if a Prince would offer Honours, and Lordſhips, and Immunities to him and his heirs: if he will not accept this for his heirs, but only for himſelf, it is unnatural. Yea, if he will not oblige his heirs to ſome ſmall and reaſonable conditions for the enjoying ſuch benefits. For the Minor, that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to Infants is manifeſted already, and more ſhall be.
And this leads me up to the ſecond point, which I propounded to conſider of; whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that Infants ſhould have the benefit of being Church-members, ſuppoſing it firſt known by ſupernatural revelation, that Parents are of that ſociety, and how general the promiſe is, and how gracious God is. And 1. It is certain to us by nature that Infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged. 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Common-wealths in the world (perfecte ſed imperfecta membra) being ſecured from violence by the laws, and capable of honours and right to inheritances, and of being real ſubjects under obligations to future duties, if they ſurvive. And this ſhews that they are alſo capable of being Church-members, and that nature revealeth to us, that the Infants caſe much followeth the caſe of the Parents, eſpecially in benefits. 3. Nature hath actually taught moſt people on earth, ſo far as I can learn, to repute their Infants in the ſame Religious ſociety with themſelves, as well as in the ſame civil ſociety. 4. Ʋnder the Covenant of works (commonly ſo called) or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature; the Infants ſhould have been in the Church, and a people holy to God, if the Parents had ſo continued themſelves. And conſider, 1. That holineſs and righteouſneſs were then the ſame things as now, and that in the eſtabliſhing of the way of propagation, God was no more obliged to order it ſo, that the children of righteous Parents ſhould have been born with all the perfections of their Parents and enjoyed the ſame priviledges, than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants ſhould be of the ſame ſociety with their Parents, and have the immunities of that ſociety. 2. We have no reaſon when the deſign of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace, to think that love and grace are ſo much leſs under the Goſpel to the members of Chriſt, than under the Law to the members or ſeed of Adam, as that then all the ſeed ſhould have partaked with the ſame bleſſings with the righteous Parents, and now they ſhall all be turned out of the ſociety, whereof the Parents were members. 5. God gives us himſelf the reaſons of his gracious dealing with the children of the juſt from his gracious nature, proclaiming even pardoning mercy to ſlow thence, Exod. 34. and in the ſecond Commandment. 6. God doth yet ſhew us that in many great and weighty reſpects he dealeth well or ill with children for their Parents ſakes: as many Texts of Scripture ſhew (and I have lately proved at large in one of our private diſputes, that the ſins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt.) So much of that.
Reply. Mr. T. ſaith nothing to all, that I think the Reader needeth a reply to.
SECT. LVIII.
R. B. YEt before I cite any more particular Texts, I will add this one argument from the tenour of the Covenant of grace, as expreſſed in many Texts of Scripture. According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace, God will not refuſe to be their God and take them for his people, that are (in a natural or law ſenſe) willing to be his people, and to take him for their God. But the Infants of believing Parents are thus willing, Ergo. The Major is unqueſtionable. The Minor is proved from the very law of nature before expreſſed. Infants cannot be actually willing themſelves in natural ſenſe, Ergo, the reaſon and will of another muſt be theirs in law ſenſe, and that is of the Parents, who have the full diſpoſe of them, and are warranted by the law of nature to chooſe for them (for their good) till they come to uſe of reaſon themſelves. The Parents therefore by the light and law of nature chooſing the better part for their children, and offering and devoting them to God, by the obligation of his own natural law, he cannot in conſiſtency with the free grace revealed in the Goſpel, refuſe thoſe that are ſo offered. And thoſe that thus come to him in the way that nature it ſelf preſcribeth, he will in no wiſe caſt out, Joh. . . And he will be offended with thoſe that would keep them from him, that are offered by thoſe that have the power to do it, though they cannot offer themſelves. For legally this act is taken for their own. Thus I have ſhewed you ſome of the fundamental title that Infants of Believers have to Church-memberſhip, and our obligation to dedicate them to God.
Reply. Mr. T. ſaith [that ſome acts of the Parents are legally taken for the childs is not denied.] But here he denieth it, and I leave his denial with my copious proof in my Treatiſe of Infant-baptiſm to the Readers.
SECT. LIX.
R. B. YOu muſt now in reaſon expect, that infants Church-memberſhip being thus eſtabliſhed, partly in the law of nature, and partly in the fundamental promiſe, what is after this ſpoken of it ſhould not be any new eſtabliſhment, but confirmations and intimations of what was before done, rather giving us the proof that ſuch a law and promiſe there is that did ſo eſtabliſh it, than being ſuch firſt eſtabliſhing laws or promiſes themſelves. And from hence I may well add this further argument. If there be certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-memberſhip, but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all ſpeaking of it as no new thing, then we have great reaſon upon the forementioned evidence, to aſſign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have expreſt. But the former is true, ergo, the later. You confeſs that Infants were Church-members once. You only conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conceit hath not a word to ſupport it in the Text. The right to ſuch a bleſſing was then new to Abrahams ſeed, when Abraham firſt believed: But when it began to belong to Infants of Believers in general, no Text except this before cited doth mention. Nor doth that promiſe to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Church-memberſhip of Infants, but only an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing.
Reply. To this Mr. T. ſtill affirmeth that Infants Church-memberſhip was proper to the Hebrews only. Reader, though they had their peculiarities, is it credible that the Infants of that one ſmall country only ſhould be ſo differently dealt with by God, from all the world elſe, even Henoch's, Noe's, Sem's and all from Adam to the end of the world, that theſe Infants only ſhould be Church-members and no others? what unlikely things (yea againſt evidence) can ſome believe?
SECT. LX, LXI, LXII.
R. B. NOW for the Texts that further intimate ſuch a foregoing eſtabliſhment. 1. There ſeems to be ſome believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living: For it is to be noted what Biſhop Uſher ſaith, Annal. vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum (poſt ſemen promiſſum) mulieri Evae nomen a marito eſt impoſitum, Gen. 3.20. quod mater eſſet omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam, ſed illud quoque quod eſt per fidem in ſemen ipſius, Meſſiam promiſſum: quomodo & poſt eam Sara fidelium mater eſt habita. 1 Pet. 3.6. Gal. 4.31.] He put this name on her after the promiſe, becauſe ſhe was to be the mother of all the living, not only that live the life of nature, but that which is by faith in the Meſſiah her ſeed. So that as ſhe was the root of our nature, we are her natural ſeed; and as ſhe was a believer, and we the ſeed of her a believer, ſo is ſhe the mother of a holy ſeed, and we that are her ſeed are holy, as a people viſibly dedicated to God.
2. When Cain was born, his mother called him [poſſeſſion] becauſe ſhe had obtained a man of the Lord, that is, ſaith Ainſworth, [with his favour, and of his good will,] and ſo a Son of promiſe, and of the Church. And therefore it is to be noted, that when Cain had ſinned by killing his brother, God did curſe him, and caſt him out of his preſence, Gen. 4.14, 16. So that he was excommunicate and ſeparated from the Church of God, ſaith Ainſworth, [that is, from the place of Gods word and worſhip which in likelihood was held by Adam the father, who being a Prophet, had taught his children how to ſacrifice and ſerve the Lord. So on the contrary, to come into Gods preſence or before him, 1 Chron. 16.29. is explained in Pſal. 96.8. to be the coming into his Courts.] Very many learned men give the ſame expoſition of it. Now if Cain were now excommunicate, then was he before of the Church: nay it is certain by his ſacrificing, and other proof, however this Text be interpreted: But no man can give the leaſt reaſon from Scripture to make it ſo probable that he entred into the Church at any other time, as we give of his entrance at his nativity.
When Eve bare Seth, ſhe ſo named him as a Son of mercy in faith, as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room, faithful as Abel, and the father of our Lord after the fleſh, as Ainſworth on Gen. 4.25. And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an Infant member of the viſible Church? I confeſs he that ſhall excommunicate this appointed ſeed, or ſaith, that Seth was without the Church in his infancy, doth ſpeak in my ears ſo improbably, and ſo unlike the Scripture, that I am very confident I ſhall never believe him.
Mr. T.'s Anſwer to all, is a denial: ſaith he, [There is no intimation that Seth was an Infant member of the viſible Church; from which Iſhmael was not excluded: In which though I place not Seth, I do not thereby excommunicate him, or ſay that he was without the Church in his Infancy.
Reply. But you ſay He was without the viſible Church: (or elſe within and without are conſiſtent with you.) And whether Iſhmael was within, and Seth, and Henoch, and Sem without, I will no more diſpute with you.