Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 58
SECT. LVIII. Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature
BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture, I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self, and see what that …aith to the point in hand. And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ, and next of Gods acceptance of them, and entertaining them into that estate. And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of Nature it self (at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them;) which I prove thus. 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due: But infants are Gods own due; Ergo, the law of Nature bindeth parents to give them up to God. By [giving] here I mean not an alienation of propriety, to make that to be Gods that was not so before; but an acknowledgement of his right, with a free res…gnation and dedication of the infant to God, as his own; for his use and service, when he is capable there…f. If you say, infants being not capable of doing service, should not be devoted to it till they can do it; I answer, they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty, and also of the relation which followeth that obligation, together with the honour of a Churchmember (as the child of a Noble man is of his honours and title to his inheritance) and many other mercies of the Covenant. And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediatour or head of the Church in his infancy, yet for all that he must be head of the Church then, and not (according to this arguing) stay till he were capable of doing those works. And so is it with his members.
Answ. It is a bold attempt to undertake to prove a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed from the law of Nature, when Churches are onelyonly instituted, not by any law of Nature, and consequently there can be no direction in the law of Nature who shall be visible Churchmembers, who not. Nor could both those things Mr. B. considers be proved, to wit, the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ, and Gods acceptance of them, and entertaining of them into that estate, i. e. of dedicated persons, prove them visible Churchmembers: there's more required thereto, to wit, something discernable by sense, by which they may be said to be part of Gods people. Yet I shall examine his proofs The conclusion may be understood of giving up, devoting, dedicating to God by prayer or vow; or else by an outward sign, such as Circumcision or Baptism. This latter is not of the law of nature, being meer instituted worship; the former may be granted, without any hurt to my cause. Nevertheless I shall say something to the argument: Which hath at least four terms, and so is faulty in the form; and for the matter of it, the major is not true without limitation. For the law of nature doth not bind every man to give to every one his own due, except it be that due which is due from the giver, or it belongs to him to give. A private man is bound to pay his own debt, not to pay every other mans debt to him to whom it is due. Now infants may be said to be Gods due, either in respect of their persons, or their service. Infants in infancy can do no service, nor doth God require any service of them, and therefore there is none due, and therefore no parents do or are bound by any act of theirs for their infants service to give God his due of their infants service. And for their persons, they are Gods due in that he may of right dispose of them as he wil, in life and death, health or sickness; and in this respect parents have no way of giving God his due, but by acknowledging his Soveraignty, and submitting to his will. Dedication to God for the future i… …o giving of God his due from infants; it is neither the giving of God the due of their persons, or their service: they are bound themselves when they come to understanding to do it by themselves; and if they do it not, the parents dedication cannot do it. I object not, that infants should not be devoted to to God till they can do service; but that what ever it be, it is not the giving God his own due from infants, nor doth make them visible Churchmakers.
Mr. B. adds. 2. The law of nature bindeth all parents to do their best to secure Gods right, and their childrens good, and to prevent their sin and misery: But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication, doth tend to secure Gods right, and their childrens good, and to prevent their sin and misery: For they are under a double obligation, which they may be minded of betimes, and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty, and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God.
Answ. To dedicate them by prayer, and thanksgiving, and vows to God, may tend to these end…: But to do it by Baptism not required of God, secures not Gods right, but abuseth his name; nor doth it tend to the childrens good, or prevent their sin and misery. For neither is there promise of God that the parents dedicating the child by Baptism shall have these effects, nor do these effects follow ex opere operato, nor is there any obligation real put by infant-baptism on the person, though there may be a putative obligation thereby: But really infant-baptism is a disadvantage, 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is, by which means they are kept in vain presumption of their safe condition; and this constant experience, and the acknowledgement of observing men doth witness. 2. They are kept back thereby from the true Baptism of Christ, which hath had, and would have a strong tie on mens consciences, if it were solemnly and in a right manner performed as it should be. Surely a mans own engagement by himself, in all probability must have a stronger operation then an engagement by another for him, notwithstanding the fond conceits of Mr. Simon Ford, and Mr. John Goodwin, of edification by infant baptism. He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism, which neither hath institution from God, nor promise of blessing, and was never known by the infant, nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing. Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision, for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it, but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred.
3. Saith he, The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society, if they have but leave so to do: But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church, which i… the most honourable and profitable society ▪ Ergo. That they have leave, is proved, 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely, (the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely▪) and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such partic…pation of benefits: As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted foreign, in the most favourable sence. So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own: when they speak of duty to God, they m…st be interpreted in the strictest sence: When they speak of benefits to man, they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear.
Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onelyonly wo…k: Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Bapti…m, Plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 24. …e have neither precept nor example in Scripture, since Christ ordained Baptism, of any other way of admitting visible members, but onelyonly by Baptism. Mr. Bs. minor then here is this, that parents have leave to enter (which is all one with admission) their children into the visible Church by Baptism, that is, to baptize them. But this is false. For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism, in that he hath not appointed baptism for th…m (as is proved at large in the 2d. part of this Review) much more to baptize them in their own persons, according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses, plain Scrip proof, &c. pag. 2…1. except they be Ministers. A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case: but a not commanding is a plain forbidding. Mr. Collings, provoc. prov. ch. 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God, but what we have precept or president for; which who so denies, opens a door to all Idolatry, and superstition, and will worship in the world. If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church, then it is a law that speaks of duty to God, not of benefit to man; for such laws contain grants of something from God, not of what man is to do: Now if it be a law of duty, it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence, which is the right sence; they are bound to it as God appoints, and no otherwise. So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism, as it is officium, a duty, both as to the baptizer; and the baptized. Mr. Ball reply ab…ut nine positions, p. 68. The Sacraments are of God, and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained. But by the institution of, Baptism recorded in Scripture, we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull, to Disciples, to them that are called. Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant: For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it, yet it self is onelyonly a duty; and such a one as is onelyonly by institution, not by the law of nature, nor belongs to pa…ents for children, but to each person for himself. But Mr. B. goes on.
2. It is the more evident, that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave, because God hath put the principle of sell preservation, and desiring our own welfare, and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature, that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature. And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness, where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him. We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness, but what is in the law of nature it self, and to use this where God forbiddeth not, if good be then to be found, cannot be unlawfull.
Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation, good, welfare, real happiness of them; but to their hurt. 2. It requires a positive command, sith it is not of the law of nature. 3. It is forbidden, in that it is not commanded. 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it, sith he hath promised none to it.
3. Saith he, It is evident from what is said before (and elsewhere) that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us. For in the forementioned fundamental promise, explained more fully in after times, God signified his will that so it should be. It cannot be denied, but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise, and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded, there be no excluding term. Upon so much encouragement and h…pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant, and into that society that partake of these hopes, and to list them into the Army of Christ.
Answ. The point to be proved was, that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church; but a leave of infa…ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God (if there be good sense in the expression) is another thing. Infants Churchmembership is the infants state, not the parents act, and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember, to which God vouchsafes leave. But whether there be sense or not in the expression, it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise, explained more fully in after times, God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers; nor is it true, that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded, is it the duty of parents (without a positive command) by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant, and into that society that partake of those hopes, and to list them (by baptism) into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be, is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person. Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent, then an other, who hath the same hopes and may do it, as viz. a Midwife: Yea, by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believe…s infants, but also all infants, if it be so much for their good, welfare, preservation, real happiness, and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement; and sith they are in their power as well as parents, yea before them, and they may list them into Christs army, enter them into Covenant and the Church, they are bound to do it. Yea, considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds, that by Christs commission, Mat. 28.19. Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples, and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born, and none can do it so soon as Midwives, they ought to do it, according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses, immediately upon their birth. Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives.
Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature, to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children. But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army, is an allowed or offered benefit to them, Ergo, &c. For the major, these principles in the law of nature do contain it. 1. That the infant is not sui juris, but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good. That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering, that is certainly to their own good: and so may enter them into covenants accordingly: And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe. 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing, when it is to the great benefit of his own childe. As if a Prince would offer Honours, and Lordships, and Immunities to him and his heirs: if he will not accept this for his heirs, but onelyonly for himself it is unnatural. Yea, if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits. For the minor, that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already, and more shall be.
Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called, this last speech is denied.
He goes on thus. And this leads me up to the second point, which I propounded to consider of; whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Churchmembers, supposing it first known by supernatural revelation, that parents are of that society, and how general the promise is, and how gracious God is. And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit, if God deny it not, but will give it them as well as the aged. 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world (perfectè sed imperfecta membra) being secured from violence by the lawes, and capable of honors and right to inheritances, and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties, if they survive. And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers, and that nature revealeth to us, that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents, especially in benefits. 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth, so far as I can learn, to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves, as well as in the same civil society. 4. Under the Covenant of works (commonly so called) or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature, the infants should have been in the Church, and a people holy to God, if the parents had so continued themselves. And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now, and that in the establishing of the way of propagation, God was no more obliged to order it so, that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges, then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents, and have the immun…ties of that society. 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace, to think that love and grace are so much les… under the Gospel to the members of Christ, then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam, as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents, and now they shall all be turned out of the society, whereof the parents were members. 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature, proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence, Exod. 34. and in the 2d. Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes: as many tex…s of Scripture shew (and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes, that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natur…l guilt.) So much of that.
Answ. 1. All these considerations, if they were yeelded to be true, would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible (which would contradict the Scripture, Rom 9.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.) yea rather, sith the 4th. consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly, is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption, which is into the invisible rather then the visible. Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society, neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers. 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members. 3. It is a gross conceit, and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture, concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau, which is intimated, as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be, that as the members or seed of Adam, so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents. 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire (as I conjecture) I do not contradict peremptorily, as not knowing how he stated the question, nor what his proofs were, Yet it seems to mee to be an errour, nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations, however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras, whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid.
Once more saith he, Yet before I cite any more particular texts, I will add this one argument from the tenour of the Covenant of grace as expressed in many texts of Scripture. According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace, God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people, that are (in a natural or law sense) willing to be his people, and to take him for their God. But the infants of believing parents are thus willing, Ergo. The major is unquestionable. The minor is proved from the very law of nature before expressed▪ Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sence, ergo, the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence, and that is of the parents, who have the full dispose of them, and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them (for their good) …ill they come to use of reason themselves. The parents therefore by the light and law o… nature choosing the better part for their children, and offering and devoting them to God, by the obligation of his own natural law, he cannot in consistency with the …ee grace revealed in the Gospel, refuse those that are so offered And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth, he wi…l in no wise cast out, Joh... And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him, that are offered by those that have the power to do it, though they cannot offer themselves. For legally this act is taken for their own. Thus I have shewed you …ome of the fundamental title that infants of believers have to Churchmembership, and our obligation to dedicate them to God.
Answ. They are (as I conceive Mr. B.) willing to be Gods people in a natural sence, who do in their own persons actually will this; in a law sence, who having not use of reason themselves, do will by another who hath the dispose of them, as v. g. a parent. That some acts of a parent are legally taken for the childs, it's not denied. But in this argument of Mr. B. I deny the major. And whereas Mr. B. saith, it is unquestionable, I say, it is manifestly false, there is no such thing in the tenour of the Covenant of grace; yea, God did refuse Ishmael, and Esau, though Abraham and Isaac prayed for them, and dedicated them (in Mr. Bs. sense) to God. What Mr. B. dictates by way of proof, whether of the major or minor (which I think he did not well heed) is not true▪ Infants cannot will of themselves, therefore the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence. For it follows n…t, unless the Law-giver do ordain it so. Nor doth it follow, that if the infants cannot will, and anothers will must be theirs in law sence, it must in Church matters be the will of the natural parents. For in such things it may be as well conceived that the will of the mother the Church (as it is termed,) the Church-governours, or as some will the Gossips should be their will in the law sence, and that they have the power to dispose of them, and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them (for their good) as the natural parents. The speeches [the parents by the …ight and law of nature choosing the better part for their children, and offering them, and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law, he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel, refuse those that are so offered,] is false, the Gospel no where …ssuring grace to those that are offered by anothers will, but to those who repent and believe themselves. The speech [And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth, he will in no wise cast out, Joh. . .] is false, it being certain God hath cast out many so comming, as Esau, Ishmael, &c. and hath a tincture of P…agianism; and the Text, Joh. 6.37. to which Mr. B. alludes, is grosly abused by him, sith it speaks onelyonly of th…se that come to Christ by their own faith, and of not casting out from the invisible Church, and everlasting life, as v. 39, 40. shew, not meerly from the visible Church. And the speech [and he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those who have the power to do it, though they cannot offer themselves,] being meant of not baptizing them, is also false; and the contrary is true, that he will be offended with those who baptize infants which he never appointed, but profane the ordinance, being appointed onelyonly for them who are themselves disciples and believers. And thus Mr. Bs. fundamental title to infants visible Churchmembership is blown up.
Mr. B. adds. You must now in reason expect, that infants Churchmembership being thus established, partly in the law of nature, and partly in the fundamental promise, what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment, but confirmations and intimations of what was before done, rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it, then being such first establishing laws or promises themselves. And from hence I may well add this further argument. If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership, but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it, but all speaking of it as no new thing, then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence, to assign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest. But the former is true, ergo the later. You confess that infant…s were Churchmembers once. You onelyonly conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your con…t hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed, when Ab…aham first believed: But when it began to belong to infants of believers in general, no Text except this before cited doth mention. Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Churchmembership of infants, but onelyonly an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing.
Answ. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving visible Churchmembership to belong to infants of believers in general, and therefore it must be derived from Gen. 3.15. I retort his argument. If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership, but none except in the nation of the Hebrews, and that had its beginning at the call of Abraham out of Ur, and ended at the rejection of the Jews, then infants visible Churchmembership began with Abrahams call, and now ceaseth. But the antecedent is true. Ergo, also the consequent. The consequence is in effect Mr. Bs. In the minor the first and third propositions are proved by the dispute before: For the second [that the nation of the Hebrews began with Abraham,] besides the allegation before of Nehem 9.6. Acts 7.2. where he is called their Father, and the story of the Hebrews begun from Abrahams call, the words of the Prophet, Isa. 51.1, 2. are express to this purpose; calling Abraham and Sarah the rock whence they were hewen, and the hole of the pit whence they were digged, Abraham their father and Sarah that bare them, and mentioning Gods calling him alone, blessing him and increasing him as the cause of it (which doth prove that it was by the transeunt fact which I described, not by Mr. Bs promise and precept that they were Churchmembers) and this as a new thing, God having chosen no other people of the earth as he did the Jews, Deut. 7.6. And therefore I deny Mr. Bs. minor, and conclude, that visible Churchmembership of infants was onelyonly in the nation of the Hebrews; not by a promise to be a God to believers and their seed, and a precept to parents to dedicate them to God, and list them in Christs Army; but by the transeunt fact of calling Abraham, blessing, multiplying him, bringing them out of Aegypt to himself, which was to be demonstrated. L…t…s yet view Mr Bs. confirmations, whether they be any better then his primitive establishments.