Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 71
SECT. LXXI. Mr. Bs. 18th. arg. from the priority of infants churchmembership before Circumcision. His 19th. from Gods proneness to mercy: His 20th. from blessing and cursing, Deut. 28. are answered.
MR. B. proceeds thus, ch. 23. The 18th. arg. is this: If infants were churchmembers before ever Circumcision was instituted, then certainly it was not proper to the Jews, and consequently not ceased according to Mr. T. his own Doctrine: But infants were churchmembers before Circumcision was instituted; therefore it was not proper to the Jews, nor is ceased. Here at our Dispute Mr. T. seemed to yeeld all, if I would prove infants were churchmembers before Circumcision.
Ans. So far as I can discern by my memory and such notes I have of the Dispute, this was my concession, That if Mr. B. would prove admission of infants as churchmembers before Circumcision, I should yeeld to what he averred, that the law and ordinance of infants as visible churchmembers was not repealed▪ Yet I confess, by reason of Mr. Bs. quickness of speech, his unheeded altering terms, using often [visible churchmembers] for [admission as visible churchmembers] which in that time in the conflict of Dispute I did not always take notice of, or through weariness mention, it not to be unlikely I did say as Mr. B. saith I did. However by my writings it app…ars this is and was my constant judgement, that infants were visible members of no Church but that of the Hebrews, nor such till by Gods call of Abraham and his house they were taken to be his separated people; and that infants were not admitted visible churchmenbers, nor any law of admission till that of Circumcision, Gen. 17.
Mr. B. adds. But in his Sermon since among much of the same stuff, he made the poor deluded people believe (I mean those that will believe him) that by infants being churchmembers, I mean nothing else but that they suck of the brests of godly parents, and are brought up in the family of godly parents; just as in our Dispute he would have faced me down, before thousands of people, that by churchmembership I meant nothing but Circumcision; I told him I did not, and he told the people still that I did. Is it any intemperance or harshness upon such dealings to say, that it is sad that (I will not say eminent holiness, but) a very little tenderness of conscience, and fear of God, and love of truth or charity to a brother, yea or common modesty should not restrain this! but that Mr. T. durst, first, take on him to search the heart, and know a mans thoughts to be contrary to his pr…fession; secondly, and contrary to the plain sense of his terms of speech; thirdly, and perswades multitudes of people that it is so. What hope can I have that ever Mr. T. should be brought to the truth, when he hath not ability enough to understand what is the meaning of [a member of the visible Church] and that after I had so fully told him! I was long before I could get him to confess, that Circumcision and Churchmembership were two things, and separable, till I gave him instance in women.
Answ. 1. In the Dispute I confess I did conceive that Mr. B. could mean nothing but the command of Circumcision by his ordinance of infants visible churchmembership, not imagining that he should magnifie such a toy, as he hath in his Letter to me devised from Gen. 1.26, 27. & 3.15. &c. which, and not defect of truth, tenderness of conscience, modesty, or charity (in all which whether of us be defective the Lord will judge) made me so confident he did mean as I then said. 2. But that I ever said in my Sermon, that by infants being churchmembers he meant nothing else but that they suck the brests of godly parents, and are brought in the family of godly parents, I do not yet believe. This I might, and I think did say, and do say it again, That I knew no sign whereby infants are visible churchmembers, except those be signs which are mentioned. 3. That I was long in yeelding the separation of Circumcision and visible churchmembership, it was because I conceived that he meant infants of o…her people besides the circumcised, were visible churchmembers▪ but when I found he meant that they were distinct and separable in the people of the Jews, I yeelded it.
He proceeds thus. And now must I be fain to shew, that churchmembership is neither sucking the brest of a godly woman, nor being brought in the family? What a hard word is this [Churchmember?] when I know not possibly how to speak it plainer. Why, Sir, where is the difficulty? Is it in the word Church? I suppose we are agreed what a Church visible is? at least you understand it? Or is it in the term [member?] why, do you not know what a [member] is? How understand you Pauls discourse about the members and body? Do you understand what is totum aggregatum & pars totius? Do yo… understand what it is to be a member of a City, or of a family? and why not of a Church? If I say children are members of this Kingdome (or (to please you) Commonwealth) or if I say children are members of every City in the land, and of every family where they are, this is all true; and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it▪ And why not when I say, that infants are members of the Church? But if you will not understand, there is no remedy.
Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is, hath appeared before in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible churchmembers, not because of the difficulty of the thing, but because Mr. B. had a language (as I then imagined, and now find) of his own, of a mediate Disciple and a visible Churchmember by anothers faith, without any note in their persons whereby they are discernable sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children: Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me, that anothers faith could be a form o… note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember, or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do, I shall not trouble him to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking of the brest, nor being brought up in a godly family, but shall (passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdome into Commonwealth) confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdomes and Cities. Till then, I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible churchmembership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine.
But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor, 1. from Mal. 2.15. where he would have [a seed of God] to be visible churchmembers. But 1. he no where shews this to be the sense: 2. this is not the sense: For here the proper end of marriage is expressed, which is common to believers and infidels. But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be churchmembers visible or invisible, neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it, but to propagate a legitimate posterity, who are called, a seed of God, because according to his institution. But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review, sect. 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here, in the 17th. section. 2. Because infants in Abrahams family were churchmembers before Circumcision. Which I grant after the time of Abrahams call, and Gods separating his house to be his people; and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abrahams call, Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument, and deny the consequence of the major. Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things, which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion. 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants churchmembers, I grant it; yet it made them visible churchmembers, though not of it self alone, yet with other signs: So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred, yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church. 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh churchmembers, how far it is true is shewed above at large, and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause. 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant (as he saith) how is it a seal (as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself) as somewhat more then a bare sign? 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh churchmembers, but which promised Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing, then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of, then the Covenant which maketh churchmembers; which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ, it follows, 1. That the Covenant, Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace. 2: That it promised extraordinary priviledges to Abraham. 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise, and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants, but peculiar to Abraham and his seed, which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses. 4. Neither doth the Apostle say, Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision; nor doth it follow, if he did, that churchmembership then went before it. 5. It may be, and by learned men is questioned, whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17.14. and if they were, it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before, the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant, but a breaking of Gods command in that Covenant; and their cu…ting off from Gods people, might be by preventing from being Gods people, as well as by making them not his people who were. 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate, that Abrahams family was then first made a Church, yet in calling that Church the Circumcision, it intimates, that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be Gods people: And if the Scrip…ure do not intimate, that then infants were first admitted members, as Mr. B. saith here, it will concern him to shew where the Scripture intimates their admission before, and how. I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words, p. 24. and elsewhere, that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism, so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision▪ I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly, the concealing of which in the Dis…ute, and since, hath occasioned the misleading of many, and a great part of my trouble.
3. Mr. B. argues thus. That infants were churchmembers before Circumcision, I prove most likely thus: If God had before the same tender love to the faithfull and their seed as he had after, and there be no mention in Scripture when the churchmembership of infants did begin (since the first infants) then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision (but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam, though he after fell off) because Gods love to the faithfull and their seed, was as great before as after: But the antecedent is true▪ therefore the consequent. He that will prove a beginning of infants churchmembership since the first infants, let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it, and I will believe him (which I never ex…ect to be done)
Answ. 1. This reason, if it were good, might as well prove the invisible as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers, and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born, and of the most open profane children of believers, as well a… the youngest children born into the world. 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally, I mean the special distinguishing love of God, nor to any of them but according to his election of grace. 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed, and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time. 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers, was from his peculiar d…sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected, which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people, whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies. 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed b…fore, in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation. 6. If Adams infants, he standing in integrity, had been visible churchmembers, yet they had been such onelyonly in the Church by nature, which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church, and some not. From hence I answer to the argument, 1. by denying the antecedent, that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin. 2. The consequence of the major, if it did not, it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time, much less from Adams crea…ion, sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire …f, and Gods love might be to believers seed, and yet they no visible churchmembers.
The last argument, whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time, which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely, he hath, in his Letter to me before recited, I think to the utmost he could, urged it, and the answer thereto is fully made here, sect. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. and thereby it may appear, not onelyonly to a man of common sense, but of acute sense, that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abraham… family, and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs, and that from the Scripture, and yet Gods love as great to Noah, Sem, and their seed as to others. Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wi… our first parents presently upon the fall, but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people. And though the promise Gen. 3.15. comprehend infants, yet not all infants; and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense, should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15▪ and that they are thereby Churchmembers, hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve, which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it. And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling, that he cites Revel. 12.17. to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman, against our infants no doubt ▪ when the woman, Revel. 12.17. is not Eve, as Gen. 3.15. but the woman cloathed with the Sunne ▪ commonly conceived to represent the Chr…stian Church, and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God, and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST, which cannot bee said of infants. But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth, or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity, and proceed to the next.
Ch. 24. arg. 19th. If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy, then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church. But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy: Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers. All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition, which is made evident thus: God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men, both from the Church and from life (for the sins of their progenitors) therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men, so much as into the visible Church, then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy: (except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church, which is not yet proved:) All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices, were swallowed up with them for their rebellion, and so cut off both from the Church and life. Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin, and so cut off both from the Church and life, Jos. 7.25, … ▪ Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shou…d serve other Gods (by the sed…cement of whomsoever) that is, if they should break the Covenant (for the Covenant is that they take God onelyonly for …heir God) then that City should wholly be destroyed, and not so much as the infants spared, Deut. 13.12, 13, 14. &c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law, that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him. All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command, Num. 31.17. they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed, Psal. 137.9. The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions, Dan. 6.24. Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance; the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perezites, the Hivites and Jebusites, Deut. 20.16, 17. (How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. [the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father] is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d. Com.) And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church, or Kingdom, then hee should not onelyonly shew more severity to the seed of the wicked, then mercy to the seed of the faithful; but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies. And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed, and the many promises to them, and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not.
Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity, is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right, nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech, such as should be used in Disputes▪ For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God, and goodness; yet the term of proneness to severity, intimates an inclination or desire to it, which is stopped by a contrary inclination; whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him, nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another, but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will. 2. It is falsly supposed, as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Churchmembership, were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin, whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership i… as election to eternal life, or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty, which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions. 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies. For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers, puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies, even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised. 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership, to wit, eternal life, out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb, are abortives, or still born. And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists, that without his visible Churchmembersh…p infants are damned. 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations, in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already, freedom from the bondage of the law, in the powring out of the spirit, in the new Covenant▪ &c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers. 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church, it being not out of any defect of mercy in God, or deprivation of mercy to them, which they may not have without it, but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent, but by faith, not national but of believers of all Nations. 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication, admission, as I have hitherto conceived it, beeing the act of the administratour of baptism, according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense, that God will baptise some infants with water, which is a fri…olous conceit. 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him, the conclusion should bee rather, that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death, but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors, for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked, then to mercy to the godly and their seed. For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives; and therefore his inference if there were any force in it, would conc…ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly, but the preservation of their liv…s in common calamities and persecutions; which it is certain he doth not, but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all, Eccles. 9.2. Which things being premised, thoug… the minor of M. …s. first syllogism may be well questioned, yet waving it, I de…y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms, which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved, except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise, which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself, as if none could know what he doth not.
He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus. Ch 25. The 20th. arg. I draw from Deut. 28.4, 18, 3. Those that keep the Covenant are [blessed in the fruit of their body;] and of Covenant-breakers it is said [cursed sh…lt thou be in the fruit of thy body; thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people, and thy ey… shall look, and …a…l with longing for them, &c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them, for they shall go into captivity. The argument that I fetch hence is this. That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition (or as bad) then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant▪breakers to be in is false doctrine: But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers, doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine. The major is undeniable. The minor I prove thus: The curse on the children Deut. 28. is, that they go into captivity: Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie: therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church, doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were; or if they were not, yet it was no worse then this; To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly; but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement: Therefore to bee out of the Church, is a greater judgement (which I must take for granted, having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out.)
Answ The minor of the first and sec…nd syllogism are both denied. For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ, either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse, yet to be put out doctrinally, that is, to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all, neither is it to be so, any judgement spiritual or bodily, nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both, nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before, but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain.
Another argument, saith hee, this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents (cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body) now GOD doth not curse the faithful; but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST (though corporal afflictions are left.) But I must haste.
Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other. The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business, it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan, while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him, and curses on them and theirs, if they fell off from God; the curses are for the most part corporal and on the Israelites, and therefore the thing belongs not to the present point, nor is it true that always the judgment on the children is part of the curse on the parents neither in corporal nor spiritual evils.
And though the truly faithful are not cursed with the great curse of condemnation, yet those that are onelyonly so visibly may bee so, yea and the faithfull themselves are not altogether free from some curses both on themselves and their children, as on the other side, wicked men may have some blessings on them and their children. Mr. B. himself said in the next ch. 24. before, They that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed, Psal. 137.9 yet were they Idolaters. Christ hath taken off the curse opposite to the blessing of righteousness, Gal. 3.9, 10, 13. not every curse from the faithfull. Out of all which I infer, that were it granted that the non-visible churchmembership of infants were a judgement for the parents sin, and that Christ hath taken off the curse from the faithfull, yet it would not follow, that believing▪ parents infants must be Christian visible churchmembers, sith some curses still stay on the children for the parents sin: Yea, Mr. B. before in his Letter tels me, that it was determined in one of their private Disputes (by himself no doubt, the Dr. of the Chair in the Colledge of Worcestershire Ministers at Kidderminster) that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt. I hast after Mr. B.