Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 54
SECT. LIV. Infants were visible Churchmembers onelyonly in the Congregation of Israel.
THe first question (saith Mr. B.) being resolved that infants were once Churchmembers, to the resolving of the second question, I shall prove these two Propositions. 1. That it was not onelyonly the infants of the congregation of Israel that were Churchmembers. 2. The infants of Israel were members of the universal visible Church, and not onelyonly of that particular congregation. The first I have proved already in my book. And 1. Isaac was a Churchmember, yet none of the congregation of Israel; it was not Israel till Jacobs days. If you say that by the [congregation of Israel] you mean [the seed of Abraham which had the promise of Canaan] yet 2. I say, that Ishmael and Abrahams seed by Keturah and Esau had none of the promise, and yet were Churchmembers in their infancy. [In Isaac shall thy seed be called] that is that seed which hid the promise of Canaan. And so it was confined to Jacob, who got the blessing and the birthright, which Esau lost, and was excluded, yet was of the Church from his infancy. The son of the bond woman was not to be heir with the son of the free-woman, yet was Ishmael an infant member. If you say, that by [the congregation of Israel] you mean all the natural seed of Abraham: I add 3. The children of his bond men born in his family, or bought with money, were none of Abrahams natural seed, and yet were Churchmembers in their infancy. If you go yet further, and say, that by [the congregation of Israel] you mean all that were at the absolute dispose of Abraham or his successors, and so were his own: I add 4. The i…fants of free Proselyt…s were none such, and yet were Churchmembers. If you yet go further, and say, that you mean by [the congregation of Israel] any that came under the government of Abraham or his successors: then I add 5. That the Sichemites, Gen. 34. were not to come under Jacobs government, but to be his allies and neighbours, being so many more in number then Jacob, that they concluded rather that his cattel and substance should be theirs; yet were they circumcised every male, and so were made members of the visible professing Church. For it was not the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to, without the thing signified: For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised; was not in the defect of the external abcision; for so Moses own son, and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach, and all the females continually: But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God, and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did. And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing, if it be not used for engagement to God, even into his Name; so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision, unless it be used as an engaging sign, and they be circumcised to God.
Answ. By [the congregation of Israel] I meant the same with the Hebrew people, or house of Abraham ▪ which I termed the congregation of Israel by an anticipation usual in Scripture; as when, Gen. 12.8. it is said that Abraham removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, though it were not so named till Jacobs time, Gen. 28.19. Which term I the rather chose, because it is most frequent in Scripture; and I remember not the phrase any where [the Church or congregation of Abraham, but of Israel] in Scripture, the phrase of which I thought best to use. Now taking the congregation of Israel for the Hebrew people or the house of Abraham, I say, the infants onelyonly of the congregation of Israel, as I say here, Sect. 51. by birth property, or proselytism were visible Churchmembers. Nor is it any thing against this my Tenet, that the Sichemites infants, Gen. 34. were visible Churchmembers; for they were circumcised as consenting to become one people with them as is expressed v. 16, 22. and therefore of the congregation of Israel. So that what ever were the reason of the reproach, v. 14. what ever were the ends of Jacobs sons or the Sichemites, how ever the fact is to be construed, or it be to be judged that they were circumcised or not, yet that instance proves not visible Churchmembership of infants any where but in the congregation of Israel, sith the Sichemites if they were truly circumcised, and so visible Churchmembers, it was because they were by agreement one people, and so of the congregation of Israel. Mr. B. adds.
6. It was then the duty of all the nations round about (if not of all the nations on earth, that could have information of the Jewish Religion) to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision. That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jewes must do it, is commonly confessed: that it must extend to infants, the case of the Sichemites (though deceitfully drawn to it by some of Jacobs sons) doth shew, and so doth the Jewish practice which they were to imitate: that the same engagement to the same God is the duty of all the world, is commonly acknowledged, though Divines are not agreed whether the distant nations were obliged to use Circumcision the Jewish sign. The best of the Jews were zealous to make Proselytes, and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their best for the salvation of others. To think such charitable and holy works unlawfull, is to think it evil to do the greatest good. And if they must perswade the neighbour nations to come in to God by Coven…nt engagement, they must perswade them to bring their children with them, and to devote …hem to God as well as th…mselves. For the Jews knew no other Covenanting or engaging to God. As the Sichemites must do, so other nations must do: For what priviledge had the children of the Sichemites above the rest of the world?
Answ. This argument in form would be thus. If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision, then it was not onelyonly the infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church members. But the antecedent is true, Ergo the consequent. Of this argument I deny the consequence of the major, and the minor also. I deny the consequence, because they that did engage themselves and children to God by Circumcision, did thereby ingraff themselves and children into the congregation of Israel. I deny also the minor. For though I acknowledge it was the duty of all the world to engage themselves to God by covenanting to take him for their God, yet I do not conceive that they were all bound to do it by circumcision. For I conceive that precept given onelyonly to the Hebrews or house of Abraham. In whi…h I am confirmed, in that I finde not that Sem, Melchisedeck, Lot, Job, ever did so or are blamed for not doing it. It is most certain that Cornelius, though a man that feared God with all his house, yet was neither he nor his house circumcised, Acts 10.2. & 11.3. and yet accepted of God. It is true, if any would keep the Passeover, and be admitted to the rites of the Tabernacle, he was to be circumcised with his males: But they might devote and engage themselves and children to God without it, nor was it necessary that God should be their God in covenant or to their salvation that they were circumcised, or joyned to the people of the Jews. I confess it was of much moment to reduce the nations, and to preserve them from the idolatry that defi…ed the world, to be of that people: for generally the uncircumcised who were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, were without God in the world, without Christ, without hope aliens from the Covenants of promise; and therefore it was a good office to endeavour to bring the nations to God by circumcision, and a desirable advantagious thing, as it is now to be in a well ordered fixed Church, yet I cannot say it is or was necessary for all, either as a duty or means of salvation to do either. Mr. B. goes on.
7. …n Hesters time many of the people became Jews Hest. 8.17. who yet were not under their government. And to be Jewes is to be of the Jewish profession. And it …s well known that this was to be circumcised, they and their little ones (as the Proselytes were) and so to keep the Law of Moses.
Answ. Though they were not under the Jewes Government in respect of all power and command, yet they were incorporated into the Jewish people, and were under their government as far as other Jews by birth were, having some exercise and liberty of using their own lawes, though with subjection also to the Persian Princes. I confess their being Jews was by circumcising of them and their males, but hereby is not proved that any infants were visible Churchmembers but in the Congregation of Israel, but rather the contrary. Sith they were become Jews, that is of the Congregation of Israel.
8. Saith Mr. B. The scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abrahams successors, and yet were to Circumcise their children as Churchmembers.
Answ. Though they were from under the Government of Abrahams successor in respect of all power and command, yet they were under their Government so far, as they were permitted the exercise of the Mosaick Lawes, and were of the Congregation of Israel, and were Circumcised as members thereof; and therefore no infants yet proved visible Churchmembers out of that Congregation.
9. Saith Mr. B. When Jonas preached to Ninive, it was all the race of man among them, without exception, from the greatest to the least, that was to fast and joyn in the humiliation: Ergo, all, even infants as well as others, were to partake of the remission. If you say, the beasts were to fast too: I answer, as they were capable in their kinde of part of the curse, so were they of part of the benefit, but their capacity was not as mans: They fasted to manifest mans humiliation. And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kinde, no wonder if infants sped the better in theirs, and according to their capacities, and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin.
Answ. All this is quite from the business, for it proves not that either the aged or the infants were visible Churchmembers out of the Congregation of Israel. If the fasting prove the visible Churchmembership, it proves the visible Churchmembership of the beasts as well as the infant-men. If the repentance bee alledged to prove it, I hardly think such a sudden quickly past repentance will prove any of them visible Churchmembers of Christ, any more then the Mariners prayer, fear, sacrificing, making vowes, Jonah 1.14.6. If it do, yet it proves onelyonly the aged who turned from their evil way, Jonah 3.10. to be visible Churchmembers; there's no proof yet of an infants visible Churchmembership out of the Congregation of Israel.
10. Saith Mr. B. What I have said of Sem and many others, and their posterity already▪ I shall not here again repeat: and more will be said anon to the following questions.
Answ. What is said shall be answered in its place. Mr. B. goes on thus.
The 2d. proposition to be proved is, that [the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ as well as of the Congregation of Israel] But this you did heretofore acknowledge, and therefore I suppose will not now deny. I suppose it past controversie between us; 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth. As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced, and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ, Heb. 11.26. and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ, and searched diligently, and prophesied of the grace to come, and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time, and testifying before hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, 1 Pet. 1.10, 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ, and members of the body of Christ▪ and given for the edification of that body: Though it was revealed to them that the higher privigledes of the Church after the comming of Christ, were not for them but for us, 1 Pet. 1.12. 2. I suppose it agreed on also between us, that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall, but the Church of Christ, and therefore either infants were members of Christs Church, or of no Church of Gods institution. Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two, but one Church. For Moses was Christs Usher, and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ: And though the foolish Jewes by mis-understanding them made a separation, and made Moses Disciples to bee separate from Christs Disciples, and so set up the alone [shadowes of things to come, yet the body is all of Christ] Col. 2.17. and by so doing they violated Gods institution, and unchurcht themselves. 3. I suppose it agreed also, that Christs Church is but one, and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible, yet make up one body. 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal. (Though the Church was more eminently called Catholike, when the wall of separation was taken down.) But I remember I have proved this in my Book, part. 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now.
Answ. I grant as I did heretofore, that the Israelites children were members of the universal visible Church of Christ, as well as of the Congregation of Israel, or rather in that they were of the Congregation of Israel, nor do I deny that Christ had then a Church on earth, nor that there was no true Church, or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ. But as for the third, though I grant that Christs invisible Church is but one by unity of the same spirit and faith, and that the visible Church is but one in some respect, namely in respect of the profession o… the same faith and hope in Christ: yet they are not so one, as that whoever is a visible member of one particular Church, is a member of each particular Church; and though I yeild that whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal, yet it follows not, which is it that Mr. B. drives at, and vainly talks of his proving it elsewhere, as will be shewed hereafter) that every one who was a member of the universal Church, in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular, was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ; nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church, in that hee was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ, was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church. As for instance, Cornelius and his house who feared God, Acts 10.2. were visible members of that particular Church of his house, and so of the universal, yet were not visible members of the particular Church Jewish, as may bee proved from their uncircumcision and shunning as unclean by the Jews, Acts 10. & 11.3. The reason is manifest: For the universal hath not a distinct existence from the parts, nor is any part existing in another part, because it is part of the whole, as the finger is not in every part of the body because it is in the body, in that it is in the hand, which is a part. And therefore Mr. Bs. arguing (which he confides so much in, part. 1. ch. 20. of plain Script. &c.) will appear to be vain; that because infants were visible members of the Church universal, in that they were of the Church Jewish, therefore they are in the Christian, properly so called, contradistinct to the Jewish. Which speech I use, as commonly Divines do, because though the Jewish Church were Christs Church, yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the dayes of the Apostles Acts 11.26. we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called, that is, which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching, nor Moses in the Christian Church, nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church, as Aegypt though in Africa, and Persia though in Asia, yet are not said to be in Asia the less, or Africa propria. Mr. B. proceeds.
Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that [it was not onelyonly of the Jewes Commonwealth that infants were members of, but of the Church distinct from it.] This is proved sufficiently in what is said before.]
Answ. As yet I do not finde it proved, that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth, or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth. What is said about it, sect. 43. may be there seen by the Reader.
Moreover, saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Churchmembers in Abrahams family before Circumcision, and after when it was no Commonwealth. So they were in Isaacs, Jacobs, &c.
Answ. Abrahams family, and Isaacs, and Jacobs, were a Commonwealth, although they were but small; they had government within themselves. Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself, Gen. 14.14. Isaac made a league as a Prince co…ordinate, Gen. 26.31. so did Jacob, Gen. 31.53. These with other acts shew they were an independent Commonwealth.
2. Saith Mr. B. The banished, captivated, scattered Jews, that ceased to bee members of their Commonwealth, yet ceased not to bee of the Church.
Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews, as they were of the Church, both de jure, and de facto, they acknowledging themselves to be of that people, and to a…here to their laws, although somewhat restrained of their liberty, as a captivated, imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republique to which he hath not access.
3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land, that became Jews in Hesters time, joyned not themselves to their Commonwealth: Nor the Sichemites.
Answ. The contrary is true▪ as concerning the Sichemites is shewed before.
4. Saith he, Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Commonwealth.
Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members.
5. Saith he, The children of Abraham by Keturah, when they were removed from his family were not unchurched; and yet were no members of the Jewes Commonwealth. But I shall take up with what is said for this already, undertaking more largely to manifest it, when I perceive it necessary and useful.
Answ. Abrahams children by Keturah, when out of the Commonwealth of the Hebrews were unchurched, at least, in respect of the Church of the Hebrews; nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary, will be any thing but more words without proof.