Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 60
SECT. LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22.
WE come next, saith Mr. B. to the promise made to Abraham, which I shall say the less to, because you confess it. But again note, that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people, and so of infants to be members of the Church, to be at Abrahams …all from Ur. 1. There is no one word of that in the text. 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham, yea and from Haran, and lived with him: were not Lot and his infants Churchmembers then?
Answ. 1. I confess a promise to Abraham, but not that Abraham or his infants were visible Churchmembers by it, as the so…e or next efficient cause. 2. What word is in the text for the beginning of the Jewish people to be Gods Church at Abrahams call out of Ur, is shewed above, from Isai 51.1, 2. Nehem. 9.7. Acts 7.1, 2. 3. Lot came along with Abram to Canaan, but was there parted from him, and all along they were severed, and therefore Lot though a righteous man, yet was not of the same Church with Abrams house, nor his infants if he had any, visible Churchmembers, because God intended not to make his house and posterity his Church visible.
3. Saith Mr. B. The chief note I intend is this, that there is no more said then to prove infants Churchmembers, then what wee have shewed was said long before, and is said after the Gentiles infants, no nor so much. If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur, yea or the promise made to him in Haran, Gen. 12.2, 3. will prove infants Churchmembership, then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews.
Answ. I neither make Abrahams passage out of Ur, nor the promise in Haran (or rather in Ur. Gen. 12.2, 3.) to be that which made infants visible Churchmembers in the Hebrew nation, but Gods special call, or taking the house of Abraham entirely to bee his people, which Mr. B hath not nor can shew to have been done to any other people.
And here, saith he, I note further, that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision, you plainly yeild that infants Churchmembership is a thing separable from Circumcision, and begun not with it, but before. And indeed I think I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism. Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision, but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith▪ Ishmael was a member before, and so was Isaac, and the infants born in Abrahams house.
Answ. I grant visible Churchmembership was before Circumcision in Abrahams house, but not that Abraham was circumcised under this formal consideration, as a member of Christs Church by faith, but as one to whom it was commanded by God.
Mr. B. goes on. Whether there were any promise or precept of this (but a meer transeunt fact) let the text last mentioned, and the following bear witness. Gen. 12.2, 3. [In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed] and Gen. 17.7, 9, 10. [And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee — and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham: Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their genera…ions. This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you, &c.] to vers. 15. In all this let these things be noted. 1. That here is an expres promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after him. 2. That it is not onelyonly de praesenti, but for the future, called an everlasting Covenant. 3. That this promise or Covenant doth manifestly imply and include infants Churchmembership (as you confess.) 4. That yet here is not the least word that intimates an institution of it de novo, but rather the contrary plainly intimated. The promises before Gen. 17. are mainly about the multiplication of Abrahams seed. What is that to Churchmembership? (except what Intimates the promised seed, of which anon.) Hagar hath a promise also of the multiplication of Ishmaels seed. And the very precept of Circumcision is onelyonly one part of the infant members, viz. the males, and therefore it cannot be foundation of their Churchmembership, which leaves out half the members. 5. Note that the promise that God will be their God, doth expresly contain the Churchmembership of the seed. 6. Note that this is more then a transeunt fact, Ergo being an everlasting Covenant. Had it been a natural transeunt fact, that had left no permanent title behind it in the obligation of the Covenant, then it had been null and void as soon as spoken: then the word of God is but a bare sound and of no further force. 7. Note that the Apostle (as is said) Rom. 4.10, 11, 12, 13. doth fully manifest to us, that this promise was made to Abraham as a believer, and that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which hee had, yet being uncircumcised: and therefore that the chief part of the Covenant of having God for our God, and his taking us as his peculiar people, belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. 8. And he oft sheweth that the faithful are Abrahams seed, and therefore the chief blessings of the promise belong to all the faithful. But one of the blessings was, that their infants should be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant, Ergo, the infants of the faithful who are the heirs of the same promise, must be comprehended in it too.
Answ. 1. I deny not the promise Gen. 17.7. to include infants Churchmembership, but that I confess that it doth manifestly imply and include infants visible Churchmembership Mr. B. cannot shew. 2. The promise that God will bee their God, doth not expresly contain the visible Churchmembership of infants. For God may be God to them who are not visible Churchmembers, and he may not be God to them who are. 3. If in the promises Gen. 12.2, 3. Gen. 17.7. and the precept Gen. 17.9, 10. there be no institution de novo, nor foundation of infants Churchmembership, then in ants Churchmembership visible (which was not before Abrahams dayes) hath not foundation in the promises and precept, but the transeunt fact I have mentioned. 4. Though I conceive that a transeunt fact may create a permanent title, as a gift, a delivery into our hands without a promise for future, may create a permanent title, nor do I deny that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. did leave a permanent title behinde it; yet I deny that the visible Churchmembership of infants in Abrahams house was by a title to be legally claimed, or by the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as the causa procreans of it, though it might bee the causa conservans of it, in that it assured some of those acts whereby it was continued. 5. I deny that the Apostle Rom. 4.10, 11, 12, 13. doth at all, much less fully manifest to us, that the promise Gen. 17.7. was made to Abraham as a believer, though I grant what Mr. B. infers from it in his 7th. note. The Apostle doth plainly manifest, that in the Gospel sense it was made to Abraham as father of believers. 6. It is denied as most certainly false, that one of the blessings of the promise Gen. 17.7. to the faithful Gentiles was, that their infants should be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant, yea the Apostle concludes, and proves Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. That all the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were not comprehended in that promise, and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers, c…n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7. and precept v. 9.10.
9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this ma…ter, that in the great promise Gen. 12.3. the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth [all the families of the earth shall be blessed] as the Heb. Samar. Arabic. or [all the kindreds] as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or [all the tribes] as the Sept. foreign. And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised, and so a Gospel blessing (Ergo the Syriac. adds [and in thy seed] and the Arab. hath [by thee.]) And the Apostle fully testifieth that. So that as tribes, kindreds, families, do most certainly comprehend the infants, and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church, so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ.
Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3. is not visible Churchmembership (which may be without justification) but justification, as the Apostle expresly expounds it, Gal. 3.8. (which may be without visible Churchmembership:) Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation, nor every one of a tribe or kindred, as it is Acts 3.25. but the elect, and believers of each nation, tribe, or kindred, as the Apostle doth both v. 7. & 9. shew, terming them that are blessed those that are of faith. Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of, yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain, the promise being not of visible Churchmembership, nor to nations, families, kindreds entirely, nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such; but to so many of all nations, kindreds, and families, as are believers or elect. Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families, and this promise, without apparent violence to the Text.
10. Saith he, Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision, so they are two distinct things; and as the sign is here commanded de novo, so the thing signified (I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant) is commanded with it, though not de novo, as a thing now beginning as the sign did. So that here is in Circumcision not onelyonly a command to do the circumcising outward act, but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant, and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God, and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people. So that here are two distinct duties concurrent. …he one external newly instituted, the other internal not newly instituted. And therefore the former may cease, and yet the later stand: and it's no proof that the later (Covenant engagement of infants to God) is ceased, because the sign of Circumcision is ceased; no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin; or that women were not Churchmembers separated, engaged, dedicated to God in infancy, because they were not circumcised. And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years. So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers. And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 & Gen. 17.
Answ. I do indeed, but not such as Mr. B. should produce, a promise of infants visible Churchmembership, and a precept of their entring unrepealed; there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership, or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision, which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed. As for his discourse of a duty of engaging, separating to God, and dedicating, which is internal, and not instituted de novo, it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were, is it any thing to the purpose. For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church, either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself, infants are visible Churchmembers afore it, yea without it; nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it, but by an outward sign, as he himself determines, part. 1. ch. 4. of Baptism: And this sure is now Baptism, which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents, for then they should be Ministers of the Seals, which he counts one of my six errours. I never denied an internal duty of faith, prayer, vowing, &c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God, prayer for them is practised by me in publick, but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers, or admissable by Baptism.
He adds. And when I consider the parents, breeding, and manners of Rebe…kah, I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy, then that she was entred afterwards at age, or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her.
Answ. What in the parents; breeding, and manners of Rebe…kah Mr. B. observes, which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy, I know not: There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother, and Rachel his daughters Idols, as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive, that either in that house there was no Church of God, or at best a very impure one, though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites, which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob, then the daughters of the Canaanites, whom Esau chose.
Mr. B. adds. And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants, so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed, not onelyonly in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth (of which before) but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers. For Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. it's thus alledged [because thou hast done this thing, &c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.] And Gen. 26.3, 4, 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac, and the same reason assigned, [because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws.] How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing, I am not determining; but taking the words as I find them in general, I may conclude, that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some way or other. And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason, yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction, we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common: At least, if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed (upon the freeness of Gods grace, or the eminency of Abrahams obedience,) yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithfull and obedient, yea, to prefer that before his own life, and not a son onelyonly, it may be hence gathered, that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that account, will bless theirs on the same, with the same blessings in the main (as to his favour and acceptance of them) though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of external things.
Answ. Mr. B. like another Procrustes (though in vain) would fain rack the Texts Gen 22.16, 17, 18. & 26.3, 4, 5. to his purpose. Though I deny not but a common mercy may be granted on a special reas…n, and a special mercy on a common reason, God being a free agent; yet in this business, the reason of Abrahams mercy and the mercy it self are both so special and proper, that it is extream violence to the Texts, to apply Abrahams singular obedience in offering his son, so signally eminent, Heb 11.17. Jam. 2.21. to every believers obedience; and the blessing granted to his seed, that it should be as the stars of heaven, as the sand on the sea shore, that in it all nations should bless themselves or be blessed, to every believers natural seed, and their visible Churchmembership. This kind of arguing is too ridiculous to deserve a serious refutation. Yet he hath not done.
In Exod. 12.48. saith he, there is a law for the circumcising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land, that will keep the passover: which comprehendeth their Churchmembership, as is shewed.
Answ. I grant there is, but not a law unrepealed.