More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Section 96,97 – Section 117
SECT. XCVI, XCVII.
R. B. THE next Queſtion that I ſpould ſpeak to is, whether theſe Laws, or Covenants, or Promiſes, are capable of a revocation, or repeal? and I ſhall take this for a queſtion that needs no further debate, among men that know what a Law or Promiſe is. Gods immutability and perfection may make ſome Laws unrepealable, while the ſubject remains: but otherwiſe the thing it ſelf is capable of it. Only where a Promiſe or Law is but for a limited time, when the time is expired it ceaſeth, and the ceſſation is as to the nulling of it, equal to a revocation or abrogation. I put in this queſtion, leſt you ſhould hereafter change your mind and ſay, that indeed it is a law, or promiſe, or covenant, by which the right of Church-memberſhip is conferred, and Infants dedicated to God: but it is but a tranſeunt Law or Covenant.] Anſw. If ſo, then it is either immediately or preſently tranſeunt, or at a certain limited time only, when it will ceaſe. The former is certainly falſe and intolerable. For, 1. They are promiſes and laws for the future, and therefore ceaſe not immediately. 2. That were to make God the moſt unfaithful promiſes and mutable Law-maker in the world, if his promiſe and his laws ceaſe as ſoon as they are made. Nay it makes them to be no laws or promiſes. 3. It was one ſtanding law and promiſe that belonged to the Nation of the Jews ſucceſſively. And God did not make his promiſe anew to every Infant that was made a Church-member, nor renew his law to every Parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the ſign of Circumciſion. Were not the uncircumciſed Iſraelites in the Wilderneſs made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force. And did former Laws oblige to Circumciſion till Chriſt? Elſe there were but few members, nor but few that circumciſed warrantably, if the promiſe and precept did extend but to the perſon that it was firſt delivered to, and every one elſe muſt likewiſe have a perſonal promiſe and precept. The Mother of Chriſt cannot then be proved to have been a Church-member in Infancy. If it be ſaid that theſe promiſes were limited in the making of them, to a certain time when they were to ceaſe, I ſay when that is proved we ſhall believe it, which I have not yet ſeen done.
And it falls in with the laſt queſtion, which is, whether theſe promiſes be indeed revoked and ceaſed, and theſe laws repealed or ceaſed. And here it is that I have long expected your ſolid proof, together with the ſatisfactory anſwer to my arguments to the contrary. And ſo I ſhall leave this task in your hands. Sure I am that Chriſt never came to caſt out of the Church, but to gather more in: much leſs to caſt out all the Infants, even all of that age in which himſelf was head of that Church: But to gather together in one the children of God that were ſcattered, John 11.52. And therefore he would oft have gathered all Jeruſalem and Judaea, even the National Church that then was, unto himſelf, as the true head, even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings, and they would not. It was not becauſe he would not (as intending a new frame, where Infants could have no place) but becauſe they would not, and ſo caſt out themſelves and their Infants. Certainly it is the joy of the formerly deſolate Gentiles, that they ſhall have many more children than ſhe that had an Husband, and not fewer, Gal. 4.25, 26, 27. And we as Iſaac are children of the promiſe, even that promiſe which extended to the Infants with the Parents. Gal. 4.28.
Mr. T. — I conceived a Promiſe not in congruous ſenſe repealable: For although a promiſe be a Law to the Promiſer, yet I know not how congruouſly it ſhould be repealed: 'Tis true, the act of promiſing being tranſeunt ceaſeth; but that cannot be repealed: that which is done cannot be infectum, not done.
Reply. I perceive we muſt diſpute our firſt principles, as well as our Baptiſm. Reader, Gods promiſe in queſtion is not a particular promiſe to ſome one perſon only, but his Recorded Inſtrument of Donation, or ſtabliſhed written or continued word, which is the ſign of his will: It is the ſame thing which is called, the Premiant or Donative part of his Law, in one reſpect, and his Teſtament in another, and his Donation or Gift in another, and his Covenant as Conditional in another, and his Promiſe in another. As [He that believeth ſhall be ſaved] is the Rewarding or Giving part of a Law, and it is a Teſtament, a Covenant, a Promiſe, a Gift, all theſe. Mr. T. cannot ſee how this promiſe can be repealed: what, not an univerſal promiſing Law, or Covenant or Inſtrument? The queſtion is not whether it ever was repealed, but whether it be repealeable, in congruous ſenſe. Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth ſuch and ſuch hurtful creatures (a Fox, &c.) or that killeth an enemy in war, ſhall have ſuch a reward▪ and repeale this Law or Promiſe when he ſeeth cauſe? I think the firſt Covenant ceaſed by mans ſin, without repeal. But I cannot ſay that no promiſe to the Iſraelites was repealed, upon their ſin! The non-performance of the condition depriveth the party of the benefit while it is unrepealed: but may not God thereupon repeal the Law or Covenant, and null the very offer to poſterity? Is it not ſo as to the Jews policie and peculiarity? What pains is taken in the Epiſtle to the Hebrews to prove the change of the Covenant as faulty in compariſon of that which had better promiſes? But if you will call it a meer ceſſation, all is one as to our queſtion in hand.
SECT. XCVIII.
R. B. BEfore I end I ſhall be bold to put two or three Queſtions to you out of your laſt Letter. Queſt. 1. Whether the circumciſed ſervants of Iſrael ſold away to another nation, and ſo ſeparated from the Civil ſtate of Iſrael, did eo nomine ceaſe to be Church-members, though they forſook not God? And ſo of the Infants if they were ſold in Infancy? If you affirm it, then prove it. If you deny it, then Infants might be Church-members that were not of the Common-wealth.
Mr. T. — None was of right of the Jewiſh Church who was not of the Common-wealth.
Reply. But my Queſtion was, when without forſaking God, they are forcibly ſeparated from the Jewiſh policy and ſubjected to others, are they not members of the Church-univerſal ſtill, though not of the Jews?
SECT. XCIX.
R.B. Queſt. 2. IF (as you ſay) it was on the Jews rejection of Chriſt that they were broken off from being Gods people, were thoſe thouſands of Jews that believed in Chriſt ſo broken off, or not, who continued ſucceſſively a famous Church at Hieruſalem, which came to be a Patriarchal ſeat. Whether then were not the children of the Diſciples and all believing Jews Church-members in Infancy? If no, then it was ſomewhat elſe than unbelief that broke them off.
Mr. T. They were broken off from the Jewiſh Church, not by unbelief, but by faith in Chriſt.
Reply. This is too ſhort an anſwer to ſo great an evidence againſt you. The Infants of the Chriſtian Jews were the day before their Converſion members of the Jewiſh Church and of Gods univerſal Church, of which the Jews were but a part: For as he that is a member of the City is a member of the Kingdom, and a part of a part is a part of the whole, ſo every member of the Jews Church was a member of Gods univerſal Church. Now, 1. The very Jews policy totally ceaſed not till the deſtruction of Jeruſalem at leaſt. 2. But if it had, I ask, was it no mercy to be a member both of the Jews Church and the univerſal? If not, the Jews loſt nothing by being broken off? If yea, how did the Chriſtians Children forfeit it? Was it better to be of no viſible Church, than of the univerſal? The Jews were broken off by unbelief: you ſay Chriſtians Infants were put out of that and the whole viſible Church by faith, or without unbelief.
SECT. C.
R. B. Queſt. 3. WHether it be credible that he who came not to caſt out Jews, but to bring in Gentiles, breaking down the partition-wall, and making of two one Church, would have ſuch a Linſey Woolſey Church of party colours, or ſeveral forms: ſo as that the Church at Hieruſalem ſhould have Infant members, and the Church at Rome ſhould have nonel? Jews Infants ſhould be members and not Genties?
Mr. T. ſo anſwereth as before, and needeth no other Reply.
SECT. CI.
R. B. Queſt. 4. IF unbelief brake them off, will not repentance graff them in? And ſo ſhould every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-members?
Mr. T. Not their Infants —
Reply. Then it would be but a part of the people that would be graffed in.
SECT. CII.
R. B. Queſt. 5. WAs not Chriſts Church before his incarnation ſpiritual, and gathered in a ſpiritual way?
Mr. T. The inviſible was; the viſible Jewiſh Nation was not.
Reply. Not in compariſon of the times of maturity: but the viſible Jewiſh frame had the Father of ſpirits for Soveraign, and commanded ſpiritual duties, upon promiſes of ſpiritual bleſſings, even life Eternal.
SECT. CIII.
R. B. Queſt. 6. HOw prove you that it was a blemiſh to the old frame, that Infants were members? Or that Chriſts Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the ſubjects age?
Mr. T. It was a more imperfect ſtate in that and other regards.
Reply. I called for ſome proof that the Infant-memberſhip was any part of the Church-imperfection: If it be not a blemiſh, why muſt it be done away: what, was the Church the worſe for Infants Rights?
SECT. CIV.
R. B. Queſt. 7. IN what regard is the new frame bettered by caſting out Infants which were in the old?
Mr. T. The Church is more ſpiri…ual —
Reply. What, doth Infants Relation detract from its ſpirituality? The adult have ſouls and bodies, and ſo have Infants? The adult come in by the ſame kind of conſent for themſelves, as they make for their Infants? The adult blemiſh the Church with more carnal ſins than Infants do? The Kingdom would be never the more ſpiritual nor excellent, if all Infants were disfranchiſed: Nature teacheth all Kingdoms on earth to take them for members, though but Infant-members.
SECT. CV.
R. B. Queſt. 8. WHether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without profeſſing faith (in the Articles neceſſary to ſalvation) repentance and obedience? And wherein the ſuppoſed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old; ſave only that a more full and expreſs revelation of Chriſt, requireth a more full expreſs faith?
Mr. T. I know not what profeſſion each Jew did make, or was to make.
Reply. I would you had been as cautelous and modeſt throughout. It is evident, that they were to profeſs conſent to Gods Covenant, which thoſe that denied, Aſa would put to death.
SECT. CVI.
R. B. YOu may ſee the words near the end of your Letter that occaſion the ſeven laſt Queſtions, and towards the middle that occaſioneth the firſt. As for your motion of my fully deſcribing the priviledges of Church-members, I ſhall add no more at this time to what is already elſewhere ſaid of it.
Reply. Here Mr. T. chides me for wronging him by length; and being afraid the Reader will do ſo too I make haſte.
SECT. CVII, CVIII.
R. B. ANd now I have gone thus far with you, in an enquiry into the truth, I entreat you be not too much offended with me, if I conclude with a few applicatory queſtions to your ſelf. Queſt. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably abſurd as moſt ever any learned ſober Divine in the world was guilty of, to maintain that [Infants were viſible Church-members not by any promiſe or precept, but by a tranſeunt fact, and that there was no law or ordinance determining it ſhould be ſo, but only a fact of God, which is a tranſeunt thing not repealable?]
But either by this fact you mean Legiſlation and Covenant-making, or not: if you do, what a ſaying is it that Infants were made Church-members not by Covenant, but by a Covenant-making, not by a Law, but by a Law-making? If not, either you muſt ſay, that God makes duty without any law, and gives right to the benefit without any promiſe, or Covenant-grant as the cauſe; or elſe, that it is no benefit to have right to Church-memberſhip, and no duty to enter into that relation, and to accept of that benefit, and to be devoted to God. Which ever of theſe ways you chuſe (and one you muſt chuſe, or change your opinion) hath the world heard of any more unreaſonable and ridiculous, or elſe more unbeſeeming a Divine, from a learned ſober man of that profeſſion? Pardon the high charge: Let the indifferent judge.
Reply. To this I find no anſwer worth the reciting.
SECT. CIX.
R. B. Queſt. 2. IS it not a great diſgrace to all your followers, that they will be led ſo far into ſuch ways of Schiſm, and be ſo confident that they are righter and wiſer than others, and that by ſuch unreaſonable arguings and ſhifts as theſe, which one would think any man ſhould laugh at that knows what a Law, Promiſe, or Covenant is? And do you not prove, that it is not becauſe of the evidence of truth, but by your meer intereſt or confident words, theſe people are changed and held to your opinion? Do they know what [a tranſeunt fact is, that without Law or Covenant makes Church-members?] I ſay, do they know this? which no man that ever breathed till now, nor ever man will know again? And do you not proclaim them men of diſtempered conſciences, that dare go on in ſuch a Schiſm, on the encouragement of ſuch fancies as were hatcht ſo long after their perverſion, and never waking man I think did before ſo ſolemnly maintain?]
Reply. I have nothing to ſay here, but Mr. T. ſeems very angry at this.
SECT. CX.
R. B. Queſt. 3. IS it not a deſperate undertaking, and dare you adventure on it, to juſtifie all the world before Chriſts incarnation except the Jews, from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God, to take him to be their God, and themſelves to be his people? Yea, to juſtifie all Jews againſt this charge, that ſhould neglect or refuſe to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church? And doth not he that ſaith there is no law, ſay there is no tranſgreſſion?
Mr. T. He doth — Let him tremble at his deſperate undertaking to uphold his Lie of Infant Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm by ſuch Lies as theſe, and fear the ate of Liers.
Reply. Charge not your ſelf, and I will not: I propoſe it to your conſideration, whether the perſons that ſolemnly take God for their God according to Gods Covenant, and are by his viſible word of Covenant, taken by God for his people, be not viſible members of the Church univerſal? And whether he that ſaith, There is no Law of God binding to do thus for his children, do not infer that they ſin not by not doing it?
SECT. CXI.
R. B. Queſt. 4. DAre you yet juſtifie alſo at the Bar of God, all the world ſince Chriſts incarnation from the guilt of ſin, in not dedicating their children to Chriſt, and entring them into his Covenant as members of his Church? Dare you maintain that all the world is ſinleſs in this reſpect?
Mr. T. I dare juſtifie the Non-baptizing them —
Reply. Here you make a modeſt ſtop. It ſeemeth you dare not juſtifie men for not ſolemnly dedicating them in Covenant to God, and viſibly engaging them to Chriſt as members viſible of his Church.
SECT. CXII.
R. B. Queſt. 5. HAve you well conſidered of the fruit of your ways apparent in England and Ireland at this day? Or have you not ſeen enough to make you ſuſpect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not? And is it any wonder if poſterity be left in controverſie about the Hiſtory of former times, when you can venture, even in theſe times when the perſons are living in our company, to tell me that [you think I am miſ-informed that they are Anabaptiſts, and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized,] when of many that we know, and multitudes that we hear of, there are ſo few that were not before againſt Infant Baptiſm, and the Seekers firſt ſuch, and when the Quakers themſelves commonly cry down Infant Baptiſm; and it is one of the queſtions that they ſend to me, and others to anſwer, [how we can prove it by expreſs Scripture without conſequences, or elſe confeſs our ſelves falſe Prophets.
Reply. The anſwer to this I leave to the Readers judgement.
SECT. CXIII.
R. B. Queſt. 6. HAve you felt the guilt which we too ſtrongly fear you have incurred, of the perverting of ſo many ſouls, opening them ſuch a gap to ſchiſm, contempt of the Miniſtry, and Apoſtaſie, deſtroying a hopeful reformation that coſt ſo dear: or weakning our hands in the work, and filling the adverſaries mouths with ſcorn, enticing the Jeſuites and Friars to ſeem your proſelytes, and liſt themſelves among you, as the hopeful party to befriend their cauſe, hardning thouſands both of the Papiſts and profane, and ſetling them again on their dregs, when many once began to ſhake! O what a Church might we have had, and were likely to have had? Had it not been for the Separatiſts and you? And what a lamentable confuſion are we now brought into by theſe? Have theſe things toucht your heart?
Reply. Mr. T. here is angry, and I wonder not; one ſtone he ſnatcheth up from Doct. Owens Appendix, and one from the Scotch Church, and Elders, and the Church at Kederminſter, and the Worceſterſhire Aſſociation, which few before him I think have ſaid much againſt.
SECT. CXIV.
R. B. Queſt. 7. IS [a tranſeunt fact, making Infants Church-members without Law, Promiſe, or Covenant] a ſufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all theſe horrid things, and run ſuch hazards us you have done? Or is it poſſible that an humble ſober man, and a tender conſcience, durſt make all this havock, and ſtand out in it ſo many years conſiderately as you have done, and this upon ſuch a palpably unreaſonable pretence? When you ſhould prove to us the revocation of Infants Church-memberſhip, to tell us that they had it only by a tranſeunt fact? Is this a ſafe ground to build ſo great a weight on? Sir, my conſcience witneſſeth, that it is not your reproach that is the end of ſpeaking theſe unpleaſing words to you, but ſome compaſſion on you (do not ſcorn it) and more on your poor followers; and moſt on the Church of God which you have ſo much injured and troubled.
Reply. Here Mr. T. is angry again, which is the ſumm.
SECT. CXV.
R. B. Queſt. 8. CAn you prove that ever there was one age, or Church (particular) on earth ſince Ad…m till about 200 years ago, that the Anabaptiſts roſe, wherein Infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church? If you can do it: Let us hear your proof.
Mr. T. I can; and for proof look back to Sect. 50, 51. and beſides Conſtantine, Auguſtine, Naz. Hierom —
Reply. I can find no ſuch thing there: what if the four men you name were baptized at age (the ſpecial reaſons are told you elſewhere.) Doth that prove that others were not baptized in Infancy? Your 52 Sect. I think to examine in the end.
SECT. CXVI.
R. B. Queſt. 9. CAn you bring us proof of any one Infant of true Church-members, that was not rightfully a Church-member himſelf from the creation till Chriſts days? or from the creation till this day? except the Anabaptiſts, who reject the benefit; whoſe caſe (as I ſaid before) I will not preſume to determine?
Mr. T. I can, look back to Sect. 50, 51, 52, 57. —
Reply. I have done, and I find no ſuch proof.
SECT. CXVII.
R. B. Queſt. 10. SEeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the creation to this day (as far as any records can lead us) is it likely that the Lord, and head and all-ſufficient Governour of his Church, would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of ſuch ſubjects, as in regard of age be diſallowed? And ſuffer his Church to be wrong framed till now? Or is it a reaſonable, modeſt and lawful undertaking, to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church, as to the age of the ſubjects? And is it not more modeſt and ſafe, to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in Heaven lived in, till the other day, as a few Anabaptiſts with vile and ſinful means, and miſerable ſucceſs, did attempt an alteration?
Mr. T. here denieth the ſuppoſitions: I leave the Reader to judge how truly.