Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 55
SECT. LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers, by Promise, or Precept; as Mr. B. teacheth.
MR. B. proceeds. To the 4th. Qu. I assert that [1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God, by accepting his favour, and re-engaging and devoting them to God, and so entering them solemnly Churchmembers.] And [2. there was a Covenant, promise or grant of God, by which he offered the Churchmembership of some infants and actually conferred it, where his offer was accepted.] I should have mentioned this first, and therefore will begin with the proof of this. By these terme▪ Covenant, promise, grant, or deed of gift, &c. we understand that which is common to all these, viz. [A s…gne of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit] such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal. I call it [a signe of Gods will de jure] because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts▪ they are all signal determinations de debiro▪ of some due. 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit] to d…fference it from precepts which onelyonly determine what shall be due from us to God, and from threatnings, which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us.
Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here, is in opposition to what I said in my 2d. Le…ter; I confess infants were by Gods fact of taki…g the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy (not by any promise or precept) visible Churchmembers, that is of the Congregation of Israel ▪ and in my 3d. I explai… my self, a promise conferri…g infants the benefit of Churchmembership, with all the consequent priviledges, a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God, and entring into Covenant, which confers the benefit (which were his own words in his first Letter) so that if we prove by any other gr…nt or deed of gift, physical or moral, which is not a promise of it, by which it is conferred, or by any Law which is not such a pr…cept, he contradicts not my speech, and so disputes not ad idem. Which whether he do or no, will be perceived by examining what follows.
Having thus, saith he, explained the terms, I prove the proposition. If infants Churchmembership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred, which some had right to or in, then was there some grant, covenant, or promise, by which this right was conferred: But the antecedent is most certain: Ergo, so is the consequent. I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God▪ to have the Lord engaged to bee their God, and to take them for his people▪ to bee brought so near him, and to bee separated from the common and unclean, from the world, and from the strangers to the covenant of promises, that live as without God in the world, and without hope.
Answ. I do not deny it, but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally, or connexively. For men may be visible Church-members, and yet not have all this benefit, and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Churchmembers. Hypocrites may be visible Churchmembers, yet not be Gods covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God, and to take them for his people, to be brought so near him, &c. And some believing Saints that are dumb, may have all this, and yet not be visible Churchmembers.
Mr. B. adds, If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision? I suppose you would say, much every way.
Answ. I should, but I would add; that to bee the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Churchmembers: Cornelius and his house were visible Churchmembers yet not the Circumcision: Nor were the benefits mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. conferred to them as visible Church-members, (For then all visible Churchmembers had been partakers of the same benefits, they had had the Oracles of God committed to them, the giving the Law, Christ from them after the flesh, &c. Rom. 9.4, 5. which is raise) but as to a people specially loved and gratified with these priviledges.
He adds. If Infant-Churchmembership were no benefit, then they that had it, were not (when they came to age or their parents in the mean time) obliged to any thankfulness for it. But they were obliged to be thankful for it. Ergo, it was a benefit.
Answ. Visible Churchmembership simply notes onelyonly a state, by which was a benefit. By the infant visible Jewish Churchmembership was a benefit of honour and special dignity above other people, which God then vouchsafed to the Jews, and do…h not so now to infants of believing Christians as such, and for it the Jew parents and children were to be thankful.
He goes on. The next thing in the antecedent to be proved is, that there was a right conferred to this benefit, and some had a right in it. And 1. if any had the benefit, then had they right to or in that benefit: But some had the benefit, Ergo. The consequence of the major is certain. 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits. 2. If any had the benefit of Churchmembership, Covenant-interest, &c. without right; then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it. Not with it: For hee is just, and consenteth not that any have that which hee hath not some right to or in, not without it: For no man can have a benefit from God against his will, or without it. 2. If no infants had duely and rightfully received this benefit, God would have somewhere reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits. But that hee doth not as to this case, Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many texts of Scripture, of which more afterward.
Answ. Mr. B. is guilty of that which he chargeth me with unjustly, jumbling things together which are to be distinguished, visible Churchmembership, right to or of visible Churchmembership, to the benefits of it, duly and rightfully receiving of it. The infants of the Jews were visible Churchmembers, not by a legal right to it, antecedent to their being such visible Churchmembers, which they or any for them might claim as due; nor was it capable of duly and rightfully being received or usurped: For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people, who were in appearance from things sensible, Gods people; and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly, to wit, his forming them and bringing them into the world, and placing them so as to be ranked among his visible people, and known by things obvious to sense to be of this people, from which this state results without any such receiving as may be denominated duly or rightfully done or usurped. Yet I grant they had a right in it, that is, they had it by Gods donation, without any usurpation by them or any other; and they had right to the benefit consequent, as to the honour and esteem and dignity absolutely, and to other benefits, if there were any other annexed to it, whether absolutely or conditionally. Yet to the proofs of Mr. B. I say, 1. That it seems to me not true, that the nature of the benefit of infants visible Churchmembership consisteth in a right to further benefits. 2. That if it were true, yet I see not how it proves this consequence, If any had the benefit, then they had ri…ht to or in that benefit. A man may have a benefit without right, though the nature, or as I would speak, the condition of it be such as to draw with it a right to further benefits; as a man may have a Lordship without right, which gives him a right to further benefits. 3. That Mr. B. jumbles together Churchmembershi…, Covenant interest, &c. whereas a person may have no interest in Gods Covenant, who is a visible Churchmember; and he ma… have interest in Gods Covenant, who is no visible Churchmember. 4. His speech, God is just, and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in, as the words seem to import, is not right. For 1. they intimate a… if visible Churchmembership were given out of distributive justice, which gives to every man his own. But this I conceive to be very erroneous. For as Regeneration, so also visible Churchmembership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord, nor of distributive justice by God as a Judge. 2. That all that any man hath from God, he hath of debt, contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 4.4. 5. That visible Churchmembership is conceived as a thing offered, and to be duly and rightfully received, or to be attained by usurpation and abuse of Gods ordinances or benefits. But this I understand not how it is according to Mr. Bs. Doctrine. 1. He conceives visible Churchmembership distinct from Circumcision. What Ordinance is there then which may be abused by receiving visible Churchmembership? 2. The visible Churchmembership of infants among the Jews, doth not to me appear to be a thing tendered or offered by God upon condition of parents faith, and to be accepted or refused: but to be a state resu…ting from Gods fact forementioned without such offer. 6. What is in the Scriptures after expressed, shall be viewed in it's place.
Mr. B. adds▪ I am next to prove the consequence, that [this right was coferred by some grant, promise, or Covenant of God.] And this is as easie as to prove that the world was made by Gods power and efficiency or will; or to prove that God is the owner of all things, and no man can receive them but by his gift. 1. If there be no other way possible for right to be conveyed from God to us, but onelyonly by his grant, promise, or Covenamt, (which we call donation, and is a moral civil action,) then it is by this means that it is conveyed. But there is no other possible way of such conveyance: Ergo. We have no right till God give us right. His will signified createth our right No man can have right to that which is wholly and absolutely anothers, but by his consent or will. This will is no way known▪ but by some signs of it. These signs of such a will for conveyance of right to a benefit, are a civil moral action, called a donation or gift simply. If the sign be in writing, we commonly call it a Deed of gift. If it be by word of mouth, conferring a present right, we call it a verbal grant or gift. If it confer onelyonly a future right▪ we call it a promise, and sometimes a Covenant; and sometimes the word Covenant signifieth both, that act which gives a present right, and promiseth the continuance of it. Right being a moral or civil thing, can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action. A gift that was never given, is a contradiction. So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four.
Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right, but a state of being; as to be healthy, strong, rich, &c. which are not given by a civil moral action, but by providence of God acting physically, as the soveraign disposer of all. It is certain, that it is by Gods will, as all things are; but this will is no otherways signified then by the event, as conversion and many other gifts of God are. My meaning is, though these things are by vertue of Gods will, and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts, which may b… called his Covenant; yet in the particulars, I mean for the persons, time, &c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership, or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it, upon that condition Mr. B. asserts, that is, the parents faith, as I have proved before, Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon …he parents faith. And to Mr. Bs. argument I say, that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation, or grant; yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise, such as Mr. B. asserts, follows not, it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species, it must be by Gods gift or grant, ergo b… promise. Yea, according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onelyonly a future right, and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act, and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it, but some other act of God, and consequently there is another poss…ble yea manifest way, without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith, which Mr. B. asserts.
But Mr. B. saith. 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right: which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it.
Answ. These a…e but words, as will appear by that which followes.
The 2d. Proposition, saith Mr. B. to be proved, is, that [there was a law or precept of God ob…iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership, by accepting of his offer, and re-engaging them to God.] And this is as obvious and easie as the former. But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms. The word [law] is sometimes taken more largely, and unfitly, as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God, considered without any sign to represent it to the creature. So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law: which indeed is no law, nor can be fitly so called. 2. It is taken properly for [an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando.] And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law. Some define it, [Jussum ma…estatis obligan… aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam.] But this leaves out the praemiant part, and some others: So that of Grotius doth, Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est. I acquiesce in the first, or rather in this, which is more full and exact; [A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness.] That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando, is the general nature of all laws. Some quarrel at the word [sign] because it is logical and not political: As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men! There is a two-fold due; 1. What is due from us to God (or any Rector;) and this is signified in the precept and prohibition, (or in the precept de agendo &non agendo.) 2. What shall be due to us; and this is signified by promises, or the praemiant part of the law, and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties. All benefits are given us by God in a double relation, both as Rector and Benefactor: or as Benefactor regens; or as Rector benefaciens: though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God, they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein. The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right: afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former, or to do the same thing: and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former, or to revive the memory of them, or to excite to the obedience of them: And these do not properly constitute duty, because it was constituted before; but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it, and therefore doth confirm the constitution, and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before. For obligations to one and the same duty may be mul…iplied. 3. Some take the word [law] in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts, especially directed but to one; or a few men; and will onelyonly call that a law which is witten, or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way. These be the most eminent sort of laws: but to say that the rest are no laws, is vain and groundless, against the true general definition of a law, and justly rejected by the wisest politicians. That which we are now to enquire after, is a precept, or the commanding part of a law, which is [a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty,] of which signs there are materially several sorts, as 1. by a voice, that's evidently of God: 2. by writing: 3. by visible works or effects: 4. by secret impresses, as by inspiration, which is a law onelyonly to him that hath them.
Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms, and he onelyonly, and that unnecessarily and tediously, explains one term, to wit [law,] which was not the term in my Letter, to which his Proposition was to be opposed, but the word [precept;] whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership, and what offer he meant they were to accept, and how, and how they were to engage them to God, and how this entring, accepting, re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Churchmembership to their children, and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision, which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed. All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down, that I might have known his meaning, and thereby have known whether his assertion opposeth my position, and whether he prove it or not. But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies, I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means, and then what I assert, and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion.
1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents, which he calls a promise or Covenant, that upon their taking him to be their God, he would be a God to their children, even their infants. 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children. 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant, that is, they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people, and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God. 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant, accepting, and re-engaging them to God, they are visible Churchmenbers.
I assert 1. There is no such offer, promise, or Covenant. 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children, to breed them up for God by example, teaching, &c. yet they are not bound to believe this; that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his, and he will be a God to them, nor to accept of this pretended offer, sith there is no such promise or offer. 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children, that is, they may do it as those, Deut. 29.12. either by charge and adjuration, or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God, as Nehem. 10.29. Josh. 6.25. and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept, and influence on them as a motive, as the Oath to the Gibeonites, Josh. 9.16. yet by this their entring into Covenant for them, they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God. 4. That if there were such a promise, and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer, and re-engaging; yet this neither did then, nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers. So that the point between us is, Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision, of entring into Covenant, accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so, and re-engaging them to God, whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers? This Mr. B. affirms, I deny. He speaks thus.
Having thus opened the terms [law and precept,] I prove the Proposition thus. 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children, to engage and devote them to him in Covenant, then there was a law or precept which made this their duty, and obliged them to it. But it was a duty: Ergo, there was such a law or precept. For the antecedent, 1. If it were not a duty, then it was either a sin, or a neutral indifferent action: But it was not a sin, (for 1. it was against no law, 2. it is not reprehended;) nor was it indifferent, for it was of a moral nature, and ergo either good or evil, yea sin or duty: For properly permittere is no act of law, (though many say it is,) but a suspension of an act: and so licitum is not moraliter bonum, but onelyonly non malum; and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality. 2. If there be a penalty (and a most terrible penalty) annexed for the non-performance, then it was a duty: But such a penalty was annexed (as shall anon be particularly shewed) even to be cut off from his people, to be put to death, &c. If it oblige ad panam, it did first oblige ad obedientiam: For no law obligeth ad paenam, but for disobedience, which presupposeth an obligation to obedience. 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church, then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do: But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it; Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major. There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it's proper efficient cause or foundation: Ergo, if it be a duty, there was certainly some law or precept that made it such. Among men we say, that a benefit obligeth to gratitude, though there were no law: But the meaning is, if there were no humane law, and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull. If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it, there could be no duty. 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will, ergo, no duty but what is made such by a law or precept. For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty. 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15. ergo, where there is no law there is no duty; for these are contraries: it is a duty not to transgress the law, and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us. There is no apparent ground of exception, but in case of Covenants. Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent? I answer, 1. He may oblige himself to an act, which he must perform, or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest: but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty: ergo, when God makes a Covenant with man, he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity, but not of duty. 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise, doth occasion an obligation to duty from God, because God hath obliged men to keep their promises. 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler, so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty, (that is duty to himself, though the act be for the benefit of another:) but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself, or command himself: so that still the duty (such as it is) hath an answerable command. So that I may well conclude, that there is a law, because there is a duty. For nothing but a law could cause that duty, nor make that omission of it a sin. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed, Rom. 5.13. But the omission of entring infan…s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed; ergo, there was a law commanding it. 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God, or enter them into Covenant with him, then either by Gods will, or without it: certainly not without it. If by Gods will, then either by his will revealed, or unrevealed. His unrevealed will cannot oblige; for there wants promulgation, which is necessary to obligation: And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will, unless remotely, as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed. If it be Gods revealed will that must thus oblige, then there was some sign by which it was revealed. And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty, then there was a law, For this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law, (which is the principal part,) so that you may as well say, that you are a reasonable creature, but not a man, as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will, but yet not by a law or precept. 3. We shall anon produce the law or precept, and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing. In the mean time I must confess, I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of it's own evidence to shame the gain-sayer. And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly, by perswading them that there were duties without precepts or laws, and benefits without donations, covenants, or promise confirming them, then despair of nothing for the time to come: You may perswade them that there is a son without a father, or any relation without it's foundation, or effect without it's cause, and never doubt but the same men will believe you, while you have the same interest in them, and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits.
Answ. This tedious unnecessary discourse I have set together, lest it should be said I omitted it because I could not answer it, though I might have well done it, and granted him his conclusion without any revocation of what I had written to him. For his conclusion is, that there was a law or precept to the Israelites to accept of Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant, which I never denied, onelyonly I denied that this was any other then Circumcision, or that this conferred the benefit, that is, made them visible Church-members, or that this mercy, as he calls it, was offered by a Covenant to be a God to believers and their seed, or that parents did by their act enter the children into Covenant, that is, Gods Covenant to be their God, or Covenant to God, in proper speech whereby they covenanted to be his people. And for the first, it seems to me, 1. That Mr. B. can produce no other law or precept binding the Israelites to this duty besides that of Circumcision, because he neither here nor elsewhere that I know of produceth any other. 2. That he means no other by two passages in this discourse; 1. because he saith there was a most terrible penalty annexed to this law obliging Israelites for non-performance (as shall be anon particularly shewed) even to be cut off from his people, to be put to death, &c. which he neither shews to be any other, nor do I think he could mean any other then that of Circumcision: 2. He saith, the omission of entring infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation, would have been a sin imputed; his limiting it to the time before Christs incarnation, intimates he meant it of Circumcision. 3. That he deals like as if he meant deceitfully, in putting off the naming the law or precept to another place, which it had been requisite for the Answerer and Reader to have found here, that it might be discerned what law he meant. And for the 2d. I say, if he could prove or produce that or any other law or precept; yet if he did not prove that thereby the infants were made visible Churchmembers, he proves not the contradictory to my writing. The other two points belong to the two foregoing and following questions. As for his confession, though his injurious insinuations of me are so frequent and so frivolous, that I could pass by them as the hissing of a Goose, or the snarling of a Curre; yet because his speeches do much wrong the truth and way of God through my sides, I judge it fit to reply, 1. That I see not reason to be ashamed of my assertion, but Mr. B. hath cause to be ashamed of his own heedlesness, and misrepresentation of my assertion, and roving from the point he should prove. 2. That I gather no Disciples to my self; but endeavour to reform the abuse of Infant Baptism, and to restore the right use of Christian Baptism, according to the plain appointment of Christ in Scripture, and practice of his Apostles. 3. That he that will be perswaded by Mr. B. that infants are Disciples meant Matth. 28.19. and that in Gen. 1.26. & 3.15. is a law or ordinance of God for infants visible Churchmembership, will believe any thing that he saith. 4. That were it not for the opinion he hath obtained of godliness by his Book of Rest, the esteem he hath gained by his writings for the Ministery, and the advantage they have by his Book of Baptism to maintain their practice and station, it were not likely so vain a Book would be esteemed among Schollers. 5. That were it not for the affrightments of Mr. B. through his calumnies and slanders, as if Ranters, Quakers, and all sorts of errours and sects sprang from Antipaedobaptism, godly tender conscienc'd persons durst not maintain as they do so gross a corruption as their Baby sprinkling is, nor neglect so great and fundamental a duty as Baptism is according to the Scripture. But the Lord will judge betweene us. I proceede.
The 5th Qu. saith Mr. B. requireth me to lay down this assertion, that [there is no law or precept of God which doth not oblige to duty; and no actual promise or donation, which doth not confer the benefit.] This I aver on occasion of your last Letter, where in contradiction to the former, you confess [the promises to the na…ural posterity of Abraham, Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and Deut. 29. and a precept of C…rcumcision, and precepts of God by Moses, of calli…g the people, and requiring them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. Deut. 29.] Yet you [do not conceive that the infants of Israel were made visible Churchmemb…rs by the promises in the Covenants, o… the precepts forenamed.] If so, then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Churchmembership, or precept concerning their entrance into that state; or else you imagine that such promises were made, but did not actually confer the benefit, and such precepts were made, but did not actually oblige. Your words are so ambiguous in this, that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way. For when you say [there is no such particular promise concerning in…an…s visible Churchmembership, or precept, &c. besides Circumcision, as in my Book of Baptism I assert,] who knows whether that exception of [Circumcision] be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision? or if not, what sense it hath? and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert? and before the sence of y…ur one syllable [such] is discerned by trying it by a whole volume, I doubt you will make what your list of it. However, if you should mean, that such precepts there are as have for their subject [the avouching God to be their God, the entring into Covenant Circumcision] of infants, but not their Churchmembership; then 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before; 2. and more shall do anon; 3. and it's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative. But if you mean that Churchmembership of infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts and yet that infants were not made or confirmed thereby; it is the contrary that I am asserting, and I have no further need to prove, then by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised (according to it…s tenour and terms,) is like a cause that hath no effect, a father that did never generate, and it's all one as to say, A gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant, seeing the name is denied, when the thing named and defined is granted. So a precept or law to enter infants solemnly into Churchmembership, which yet obligeth none so to enter them, is as gross a contradiction as to say, the Sun hath not heat or light, and yet is truly a Sun.
Answ. I grant his assertion, that there is no precept of God which doth not oblige to duty, nor donation which doth not confer the benefit; though sundry things which have the title of Gods lawes oblige not to duty, and an actual promise doth not put the thing promised in present being as the next cause, but the thing promised is thereby onelyonly made future, yea a promise that it shall be doth suppose it not to be, and that there is something else the next and immediate cause of its actual being. The imagined contradiction in my later to my former Letter, is before cleared not to be so Sect. 53. Though I have said enough before in this and other fore going Sections, yet to take away all colour of charging me with ambiguity, 1. I acknowledge that the Covenant at Mount Sinai ▪ and the Covenant Deut. 29. did declare the people of the Jews to be Gods people, or his visible Church, in that the Covenant was mutual, and open between them and God. 2. That they were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God, but by their promise to God: Gods call of them made them his Church, their promise to God with o…her acts made them visibly so. 3. The promises of God Gen. 17. did not of themselves make the house of Abraham Gods visible Church. 4. The call of God, and such acts as whereby he separated them from others to bee his (which were many) made the house of Abraham Gods Church 5. The infants were members of that Church, in that they were part of that peop…e. 6. Such things as whereby they were visibly of that people, their birth, cohabitation, &c. did make them visible Churchmembers. 7. Circumcision was one sign not by its…lf but with other things, whereby the male infants and adult were known to be of Gods visible Church. 8. No promise of God, nor duty of parents did make the infants actually visible Churchmembers, as the next cause in act either formal or efficient. If Mr. B. or any Reader will heed these passages, with what goes before, hee may easily discern my minde, and acquit me from self-contradiction, if not I think it in vain for me to use more words. I pass on to that which follows.