Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law but through the righteousness of faith Now it is certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend Infants The consequence of the major then is evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to be expounded by the same expressed more fully And it is acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Mr. T. That the fundamental Promise of Grace Gen. 3.15 doth include Infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it Reply If we be really of one mind it is pitty we should make men think we differ Mark this concession Reader The fundamental promise of Grace doth include Infants The Grace of that promise is our Vnion Relative to Christ and his Church and the benefits internal and external belonging to Christs members Do you believe that our union with the visible Church as such and participation in its priviledges is none of that Grace Mr. T. This I deny that it includes all Infants or all Infants of Believers and that any Infant is made a visible Church-member by that promise as the next cause or sole efficient Reply It will come to something anon 1. That all Infants are made Church-members by it did any of us ever affirm Though if the Parents dissent had not hindred and their consent had made them and their Infants capable Recipients it would have been all 2. The Covenant or Law of Grace giveth visible Church-membership conditionally to all that hear it Deny this and you know not what you do I first ask you Doth not the Law of Grace or Promise give both mystical and visible Church-membership to all that hear it that are at age and have the use of Reason I speak not of membership in a particular Church which some may want opportunity to enjoy but in the universal Deny this and you deny Christs Gospel Doth he not say He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved whoever believeth shall not perish whoever will let him take the water of life freely He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out Go into the high-ways and hedges and compel them to come in c. If Gods Law Covenant Promise or Donation call it which you had rather do contain a conditional Gift of Christ pardon and life to all the adult which it beseemeth none but an Infidel to deny ask thy Conscience Reader whether this blessed Covenant give no such conditional right to any Infant in the world Are they all excluded And why Are they worse than their Parents If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth to Parents it must be on a condition to be performed by the Parents or such as are so far entrusted Mr. T.'s talking of the next cause and the sole efficient seem to me the words of a man that knew not what to say but was resolved that he would not yield Sir do you grant that the promise maketh Infants visible Church-members as any cause next or remote sole or cooperating If not why cheat you your simple followers by this talk If you do we are agreed and why contend you If Logical notions are our difference say so I think as it is a Beneficial Relation the Parents consent and dedication and the childs being Theirs are the dispositio materiae called by some causae Receptivae vel dispositivae and that Gods donation is the sole efficient in which his donative word call it what you will is the Instrument This is plain Logick But you that profess that your Church-membership is it self no benefit and so owe God no thanks for it and yet make such a stir about it cannot indeed hold that Gods love or mercy or Christs merits or the Covenant or Promise are givers of it to young or old For they give nothing but benefits Be not angry to have your absurdities opened but before you die be sober and reform them He addeth I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical Grace though mixt and that it did include Infants and that they were Church-members to wit of the invisible Church of the Elect And that Abrahams Infants in his house were visible Church-members but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by the transeunt fact and if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply About 23 and 24 years of age I was my self in doubt of Infant Baptism But had I read such a Writer as this against it I think he would have easily resolved me for it 1. The Covenant to Abrahams family was a Covenant of Evangelical Grace he saith And surely so was that to Adam and Noe before And it included Infants but only as Elect in the Church invisible But the conditional Promise or Covenant is confest to include the Non-elect at age And what None of them in Infancy Reader How can this be called a Covenant for God only to say I will save all such Infants as I elect and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the world on any condition nor give a title to any person that can be known by themselves or others They confound the Decree of God with his Covenant If God had made no other Law Promise or Covenant with the adult but I will save whom I will save who would have taken this for a Law or Covenant And what right or hope doth this give to Christians for their Children more than Pagans And Reader if God have given no condition or character antecedent as a differencing reason or qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not but only told us that he will save whom he list this maketh Infants no subjects of his Kingdom under no Law and so liable to no judgement nor to stand in judgement with the rest of the world but only to be used as beasts or stones by Divine natural motion as he will And then how can you say that any Infants shall be damned or not saved Or that it shall be one of a million at least that shall not For if there be no Law that giveth Right to Pardon and Salvation to any one Infant in the world and yet many are saved it will follow 1. That God is as the prophane say better than his word and will save many to whom
Cause of Being and Motion as such As a free Benefactor he is the first Cause of all our Good as such And as a Sapiential Rector and Benefactor conjunctly that is by Paternal government he is the first cause of Right Being and Motion are the effects of Physical efficiency Jus vel Debitum is the very formal effect or object of Moral Efficiency by a Rector and the formal object of Ethicks To be a Church-member is to have a stated Relation consisting in Right to the Benefits and obligation to the duty as was said before He denieth this to be any Right and to have any such Civil-moral cause as Right hath but to be quid Physicum as Health strength Riches and an answerable Physical cause Let the shame of this ignorance reform the common error of Schools that teach not their children betimes the principles of Ethicks Politicks or Governing Order It is a shame that at 16. years old any should be so ignorant as these words import I must speak it or I comply with the powers of darkness that so shamefully oppose the truth SECT XXIV XXV R. B. 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 The second Proposition to be proved is that there was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant and Church-membership 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 majestatis obligans aut ad obedientiam aut ad poenam But this leaves out the premiant 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 twofold 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 premiant 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 multiplied 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 only call that a law which is written or at least a well known custom 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 only to him that hath them Mr. T. 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 yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their Infant Children to be his and will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer 3. That though Parents may enter into Covenant for their Children as Deut. 29.12 they do not by this make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God will be their God Reply What a deal of the Gospel and the Churches mercys do these men deny 1. The very nature of our own Holy Covenant is that in it we give up to God our selves and all that is ours according to the capacity of that all And as our Riches are devoted hereby as capable utensils so our Infants as capable of Infant Relation Obligation and Right What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is His If you except Liberty Health Life you are hypocrites And can you except Children It 's true this is but so far as they are our own and we say no more when they have a will to choose for themselves they must do it 2. I have fully proved Scripture commands for Parents to offer their Children to God and that signifieth his will to accept what he commandeth them to offer And his promises to shew mercy to them as theirs are plain and many which I must not tire the Reader with repeating Mr. T. addeth That if there were such a promise and duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make Infants visible Church-members Reply Reader are not the Anabaptists ductile men where they like as well as intractable where they dislike that they will follow such a Leader as this Promise and Duty of accepting and re-engaging aggravateth the sin of Rebels that reject it but if these performed
that it is the same enmity that is here said to be put in all and therefore the same persons in which it is put I answer 1. There is no proof of either A general command or promise to a community may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community though that difference be not expressed For the nature of the subject may prove it And 2. Experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant proves the difference before mentioned And it is well known 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters 2. And that the mysterie of grace was to be opened by degrees and so but darkly at the first that it is no wonder if we find the whole summ of the Gospel here coucht up in so narrow a room and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes 7. That we may certainly know that this promise speaks not only of the enmity that Christ himself should have to Satan and doth not engage a General without an army God doth here expresly mention the woman her self saying I will put enmity between thee and the woman so that as she stood in a threefold respect she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity 1. As she is the root of humane nature from whence all mankind 〈…〉 she is possest with the natural enmity 〈…〉 diabolical nature and this to be naturally conveyed or propagated 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern and her self with her husband who no doubt was also included in the promise were the whole then existent race of mankind so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her Infant progeny in the Redeemers army against the proclaimed enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God she received the habitual enmity of sanctification And this is not in her power to propagate though she may use some means that are appointed thereto and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means I will not now stand to discuss 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natural enmity against the Devil himself that are the Church of Christ For this is but a common preparative which is in all Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of Satan But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against Satan by the obliged person are visible members and all that are by sanctification at an hearty enmity habitual or actual with the Kingdom of Satan are members of the Church called mystical or invisible This I put as granted 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdom for Satan and his Kingdom are become themselves the seed of the Serpent And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ This much I suppose as out of controversie But whether also the first original corrupted nature it self before any sin against recovering grace did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdom of the Redeemer Or whether the sins of later Parents may propagate this as an additional corruption in our nature I will not now stand to discuss Only as to our present business it is certain that the general natural enmity to Satan may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation yea and as listed in Christs army may have many of its priviledges yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ they may be under a greater curse 10. As it is certain that it is not only Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise and is here called the seed of the woman as is before proved and may be more and is commonly granted so it is to be noted that those others in whom this enmity is put are called here the seed of the woman and not the seed of Christ though the chief of them are his seed And so though the promise is made to none but the womans seed and no exception put in against Infants or any age of all her seed Till you can prove that Infants are none of her seed we must take this fundamental promise to extend to Infants and that very plainly without using any violence with the Text. 11. Some learned men do use no contemptible arguments to prove further That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward Mr. Bedford c. that is that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman as is explained so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude that the impiety of Parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more than by original sin they were hindred and therefore their faith may further them Of which though much may be said I shall say no more because I will not stand on things so much questioned M. T. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentive Reply They that need a Reply to any thing here said shall have none from me SECT XLIX R.B. I Come next to prove from other parts of Scripture That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to be interpreted as including Infants 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened do expresly comprehend Infants as to be Church-members then is this fundamental promise so to be understood or then doth this also comprehend them But the antecedent is certain therefore so is the consequent The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the Father of the faithful which comprehended Infants for Church-members The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending Infants was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened Which is proved thus Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer therefore they were the same For there is but one such If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied that I know of That the promise to Abraham was the same is evident from
act in baptism than one God by his Ministers expresseth his Covenant-Gift and Consent and delivereth it sealed to the Receiver by the instituted investing symbol The party receiving expresseth his consent and this the Parent hath power and trust to do for the child as you may take a Lease for your Child Cannot the Parent do this and so be a Cause of Reception without being a Minister SECT LXXIX to LXXXVI R. B. THe promise to the whole people of Israel Infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdom of Priests and a holy Nation Exod 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sense yet no more truth than when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. It is expresly a promise de futuro to a Nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithful who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmaon the blessing of Church-membership to Infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Church-membership It is undeniable therefore that such Church-membership is here granted by Promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it is to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant vers 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now In Deut. 17.1 2. The Infants with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God And Deut. 26.14 18. the Covenant is expressed Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. And that thou maist be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that Infants are included So Deut. 28.4 9. Where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandments they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as he had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and Promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant on Promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means And Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant only of the successive Israelites and then it is not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It is a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off vers 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Church-membership contained in Gods being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Deut. 30.19 There is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josiâ—h caused the people to enter 2 Kings 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Mr. T. For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the Parents believing are Deut. 29. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and Parents faith are not the sole efficient so that though the Covenant give a Right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some other transeunt fact Reply The rest let the Reader make his best of We are it seems by this time in a fair way of agreement and have almost done our work It seemeth by this time he could find in his heart to grant that the Covenant is an efficient cause though not the sole efficient well we will not stick on that Gods love and revelation and Christs merits shall be antecedent chief efficients And he seemeth now instead of saying still that It is only by the Physical transeunt fact to be content if we will say it is not till or without that fact that is that men are not members of the Church till they are men We will not be so sowre as to deny him that much And indeed is this all at the upshot But I will not grant him the logical notion too easily though we will not quarrel about it I think a cause materially may long exist before the effect though it be not formaliter causa till it effect And I think that Gods conditional Covenant or Promise is but causa virtualis aptitudinalis till it effect and yet may be the sole proximate efficient of our Right afterward I think the childs being born did not effect his Right to Church Relation nor doth our Faith now nor the Parents faith or consent but only as a condition make men capable Recipients And I think the effect may begin de novo without any change in the efficient upon a change in the Recipient And that the Sun unchanged is the proximate efficient of motion light and heat to the next existent wight that received not his influx before it did exist And the Covenant or
consent is the receptive cause which is conditio sine qua non They that will not impartially think of plain cases cannot understand them Your unthankful denying that God hath made any such Promise Covenant or Consent is elsewhere confuted And if I shall say with Davenant and the Synod of Dort that this Covenant being the same that is made with Parents themselves giveth the Children the same Right to Pardon and Life eternal according to their capacity so that faithful Parents should not doubt of the Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy ut Synod Dort Art 1. c. 17. I could better with them bear the consequence of the loss of Gratia Infantilis in some at age than the consequents of 〈◊〉 turning them all out of the visible Church The former I know no Christian that ever opposed for many and many hundred years after Christ and the latter the universal Church as long opposed And yet I will not subscribe that It is certain by the word of God that baptized Infants dying before actual sin are certainly saved without excepting the Infants of Heathens or Infidels wrongfully baptized Mr. T. 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Church-member are not visible Church-members But. Ergo. Profession of faith is the form constituting c. Answ 1. Covenant Consent is the form constituting ex parte Recipientis and this they have reputatively in their Parents whose will is as theirs 2. The Jews Infants had the form constituting a visible member as you confess And that was not circumcision For the uncircumcised females and males too in the wilderness were visible members Nor was it to be born of Jews For apostate Jews forfeited it and Proselytes of other Nations obtained it But it was by consent to Gods Covenant 3. And Christ was a visible member by Divine Revelation His arguings would make against Christs Righteousness Imputed to believers and Adams or the Parents sins imputed to them Mr. T. 5. If Infants be visible Christian Church-members then there may be a visible Church-Christian which consists only of Infants of believers But this is â—bsurd Ergo. Answ Such quibbles seem something when the Will giveth them their force 1. Infants are members of all Kingdoms under Heaven And yet there neither is nor can be a Kingdom of Infants only 2. Members are Essential or Integral Because the exercise of the faculties of the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita is the intended means to the Common Good which is the End of Government therefore there can be no Governed Society Kingdom or other proper Policy of which men that have the use of Reason are not members that there be some such to be the Active part is Essential to the Society But yet Infants that are yet but virtually such are Integral members Mr. T. 6. I argue If Infants be visible Church-members there is some Cause of it But there is no Cause Ergo Answ The Cause efficient is Gods Revealed Donation and Covenant Consent The Cause Receptive or the Condition of Reception is That this be the Child of a Consenting believer Mr. T. To this 1. Mr. T. denyeth any such Covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed which is soon said 2. He saith the Conditional Covenant promiseth Justification Salvation on Condition of faith and not visible Church-membership and so belongs to all as Mr. B. c. Answ 1. It giveth both Justification and visible membership that is Right to both and many other Covenant benefits 2. It belongeth Conditionally to all and Conditionally gives union with Christ and his Church and Pardon and life to all But actually to none till the condition be performed which is a believing Parents consent and regularly his Baptismal dedication Mr. T. If there were a Covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their Infants Christian visible Church-membership As he is the God of Abraham of Infants dying in the wombs of believers at the hour of death Answ It 's true if they be not the Children of visible believers because they are not visibly capable subjects But it being such that we speak of your three instances are abusive 1. Abraham is a visible Church-member of the Church Triumphant where he is I will not believe you if you deny it 2. Infants of visible Christians dying in the womb are in that degree visible Church-members as they are visible persons that is It is a known thing that they are the children of God according to their capacity 3. One visibly believing at the hour of death is a visible Church-member One not visibly believing belongeth not to our case Mr. T. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assigneth is not sufficient But c. For they may all be before the child is born Answ A meer quibble 1. Before he is born I tell you as far as he is visibly the child of a visible Christian so faâ— he is a visible unborn member But as to that degree of visible membership which is proper to born baptizable Infants two causes are wanting to the unborn 1. Gods consent or donation For though the Promise as a donative Instrument was existent a thousand years before it effecteth not the gift till the subject be Receptive or capable God may promise a thousand years before in diem or sub conditione which signifyeth his consent that so and then it shall be due and not otherwise or before These easie things should not be thus winked at 2. The Parents consent is wanting For though the Parent dedicate the child in the womb to God by promise yet he doth not deliver him up in the baptismal Covenant as a visible person till he is born Mr. T. reciting my answer elsewhere saith It deserveth a smile For I make Christ by his Law or Covenant-grant the only cause efficient The rest of his words are 1. To tell us that Justification c. hath a further efficient after the Covenant which causeth Justificability but not actual Justification without mans faith 2. That I err in taking visible membership to be a Right and moral effect Answ I take not that for the picture of the wisest man whom the Painter draweth laughing or smiling And I am now confirmed in that fancy 1. A Testament or Deed of Gift in diem which saith At seven years end that land shall be yours may be the only efficient Instrument long before existent and yet give you no right till the time and then give it Because it effecteth but by signification of the Donors will Must the Christendom of Kingdoms be impetuously questioned by men that know not such rudiments as these 2. That Justification which is given us at our believing which is our Right to Impunity and Life is the Immediate effect of the Covenant Donation and mans faith is
no efficient but a Recipient cause of it As even they confess that call it a Receiving Instrument And yet we have it not till we believe or consent Who would have thought that such a mâ—n as you had taken your own faith to be an efficient cause of your own Justification and so that you justifie your self And what if one give land to you and your heirs It is none of theirs till they are in being And yet their birth is no efficient cause but only the cause of the subjects receptive capacity I am ashamed that you put me thus to catechize you Mr. T. 5. If visible Church-membership be antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it But c. Ergo Answ The word Interest may signifie the Interest that fallen mankind hath in the Covenant as conditional antecedent to mans consent And thus I suppose neither you nor I here speak of it But if by my Interest you mean that I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to its benefits I answer Some benefits follow long after but when I consent then I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to union with Christ in the first instant and consequently with his Church or body in the second so that here is no such thing as your feigned membership before Covenant interest that is before a Right to that Relation by Gods donation And as 〈…〉 former dream that this is not a Right anâ— moral effect but a physical it was your self and not I that subjected you to the shame of such an assertion which I will no more confute Mr. T. 6. If the Covenant c. be the only 〈…〉 bought Orphans of Turks wholly at our dispose are no visible members c. Answ No friend of truth will run into the dark with a controversie and argue à minus notis Many judicious Divines think that Gods Covenant with Abrahams Infants born in his house proveth that two things go to make up the capacity of an Infant for baptism 1. That he be his own and at his dispose who offereth him to God 2. That he be offered or dedicated by a Consenting Owner Now their reason is because if they be our own we have the dispose of them for their good and our wills are theirs But the case is most clear about those that by Generation are our own and darker about those that are by Adoption or purchase our own Now here you do nothing but deny the darker which you cannot disprove and thence the plainer which we have fully proved Mr. T. 7. If the Covenant oâ— Law with the Parents actual faith without profession make not the Parent a visible Church-member neither doth it the child But Ergo. Answ I grant both major and minor He that is not known to have faith is not a visible adult member And he that is not known to be the justly reputed child of a professed believer is 〈◊〉 an Infant Church-member And what 's this 〈◊〉 our controversie Heart consent maketh a mystical or invisible Christian and member and Professed belief that is Believing Consent maketh a visible member of the parent and is necessary to the visible membership of the child If I may call that Making them which is but the Disposition of the material Receptive constitutive cause It 's pitty we should have need to talk at this rate Mr. T. 8. If persons are visible Church-members and not by the Covenant of Grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant is the sole efficient of visible Church-membership The minor is proved in Judas and hypocrites Answ 1. They are not the sole efficient Gods Love and mercy also is efficient 2. You profess your self that the name Christian and Church-member are equivocal as to the sincere and the hypocrites If they be not the same things no wonder if they have not the same causes That Donation or Covenant may be the sole nearest Instrumental efficient of True membership and yet not of Equivocal 3. God who is our Paternal Beneficient Ruler doth give some of his benefits by his Law or Covenant absolutely and antecedently to mans conditions and some consequently as Rewards And Gods Laws having first a Preceptive part as well as a Donative or Premiant a Right may accrue in foro ecclesiae to an hypocrite from that precept As e. g. God antecedently doth by his Covenant give the world an Impunity as to the punishment of Drowning it And so by his common Law of Grace he giveth the world many common mercies by a Redeemer and perhaps many by that you call a physical act immediately And by his Law he having given a conditional pardon and life to all commandeth his Ministers to offer it and All men to Accept it and his Ministers to judge by mens profession and to use professed Accepters as real because we cannot see the heart This being so when the hypocrite professeth his consent the Law obligeth the Minister and Church to receive it by which in foro ecclesiae he hath a right to his Church station And Christ himself called Judas and sent him out to Preach and his mandates were as Laws So that the Right that an hypocrite hath he hath by the Law which obligeth the Church to use him as a true believer upon his professing to be such None of this can be denyed But Judas was called immediately by Christ himself and his follow me was a precept which gave him a Right to his Relation Mr. T. 9. If Infants are visible members by the Covenant on Condition that the Parents c. then either the next Parents or in any generation precedent c. Answ The next Parents that are Owners of the child and have the trust and power of disposing of him or covenanting for him And the Reason is because they have 1. That Propriety and 2. That trust and power Mr. T. 10. If an Infants visible Church-membership be by the Covenant on the Parents actual believing and not a bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known c. Answ I pitty Readers that must be troubled with such kind of talk 1. The Right of the child is upon the Believing Parents dedication of that child to God by consenting that he be in the mutual Covenant 2. Heart consent known only to God giveth no Right coram ecclesia known to men but only to such mercy as God who only knoweth it giveth without the Churches judgement 3. Believing and profession qualifie for Right in the Judgement both of God and of the Church 4. Profession without consenting faith qualifieth for Right in the Churches judgement according to Gods Command who biddeth them so judge and do Wrangle not against plain truth Mr. T. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a Covenant upon the Parents faith without the persons own act and consent then neither
miserable than Heathens And if you can first believe that the Infants of all Infidels Atheists and ungodly Christians hypocrites have a promise of salvation you will next be inclined to think better of their Parents state than God alloweth you And where is this promise § 6. Some say that the new Covenant giveth grace and life to all that do not ponere obicem But I must have Gods Covenant in his own terms that I may have it in his own sense if I will be assured of the benefits Non ponere obicem signifieth plainly no Action or positive qualification as necessary but only a negation of some contrary action And it is certain that the terms of Gods Covenant to the adult are clean contrary It is not he that neither Believeth nor opposeth faith shall be saved or he that doth neither good nor harm as a man in an apoplexy or asleep But he that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned And except ye repent ye shall all perish And without holiness none shall see God But a meer negation is no holiness § 7. And if any will feign another Covenant for Infants let him shew what and where it is for I know but one Covenant of grace which taketh in the Infants with the Authorized Parents whose members or Own God taketh them to be and requireth a positive believing consent and dedication to God as the positive condition which is more than a Negative non ponere obicem though performed by the Parent for the child And so the promises throughout the Scripture run to the faithful and their seed § 8. I know that God promiseth to bless children through many generations for their faithful Ancestors sake But that is on supposition that fidelity continue in the line and that apostasie make no intercision Else all should be blessed for the sake of Noe even Cham's posterity as well as Shem's § 9. What then is the thing made necessary and sufficient by the Covenant to their salvation but that they be the seed of the faithful devoted by them to God that is that their Parents natural or at least civil whose Own they are and have the power of disposing of them for their good do enter them by consent into the Covenant with Christ which it is supposed that Faithful Parents virtually did before and will actually do when God doth call them to it § 10. As to them that say the thing further necessary as the condition of the Infants acceptance and salvation is A promise to educate the Child as a Christian if he live I answer 1. That promise indeed is included in his dedication and consent 2. But who but the Owners of the child are capable of making such a promise unless as seconds promising that the Owners shall do their duty For only he that owneth him can educate him by himself or others or dispose of him for his education who hath power to dispose of another mans child and educate him They that undertake as sureties to do it in case the Parents apostatize or die do plainly imply 1. That till then it is the Parent that is intrusted to do it and therefore that the Parent must consent to do it and therefore that the Parent must enter his child in the Covenant of Christ 2. And that if the Parents apostatize or die they will take the child themselves as their Own or else by what power can they educate him or dispose of him § 11. They that say God did not save one for the faith or consent of another must remember 1. That we are all saved for the meritorious Righteousness of Christ by the way of a free gift whose condition is but suitable acceptance And why may not a Parent accept a donation for his Child who hath no will to accept it for himself Shall he be certainly shut out unto damnation Or shall he have that gift absolutely which is conditional to all others Or is he not concerned in the donation at all 2. And remember that we have guilt and misery from our Parents and therefore though life and pardon be by Christ only yet it is congruous that the meer condition of acceptance may be performed by the Parents § 12. Perhaps some will lay all the right of Infants to the pardon of sin and salvation upon secret election only as if all that we knew of Infants Salvation were that God will save some whom he hath elected but that there is no Promise of grace and salvation to any particular Infant in the world as under any condition or qualification And if this be so then 1. No Infant hath any Right to pardon grace and salvation given him by the Covenant of Grace No more than any elect person at age hath before faith and regeneration Election gave Paul nor any wicked man no right to pardon or salvation Else elect Pagans and Infidels are justified if they have jus ad impunitatem Regnum Coelorum 2. And if this be so we have no assurance that God will save ten or three Infants in all the world For he hath not told us whether he hath elected so many 3. And yet we cannot be sure but that they may all or almost all be saved while the number of the elect is unrevealed 4. Nor can we know that any more of the Children of the Faithful are saved than of the Heathens or Infidels of those that love God and keep his Commandments than of those that hate him 5. And in a word we have then no proper hope upon Covenant right that God will save any one individual Infant in the world For we can hope in this proper sense of nothing but what we do believe and we can believe nothing but what is promised or revealed And so Parents must be thus far hopeless § 13. God who made man after his Image teacheth him to govern according to those principles which are his Image And all the Kingdoms in this world take Infants for Infant-members and the Laws give them Right to Honours and Inheritances the possession and use whereof they may have in the time and degrees that nature doth capacitate them And can we then think that God who made a Conditional Gift of Pardon and Salvation to all the adult persons in the world did wholly leave out Infants and that his Covenant giveth them no rights at all no not to be members of his visible Church § 14. It seemeth to me a matter of doubtful consequence to assert that God will save more yea so great numbers as we will hope are saved in Infancie than ever he promised to save and gave any antecedent Right to Salvation to I doubt we shall open such a gap to the hopes of presumptuous Heathens and Infidels this way as will cross our common doctrine If God may save whole Kingdoms and millions of Heathens Infants to whom he never gave Right to Salvation by any gift or promise
whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars rather than this one man that hath written us such a book and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness no nor if he had written at that time For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge § 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists or of most or of any in any other age or that I have since said that any continue the same practice he would but deceive men for it is nothing so § 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time I think it is to be taken so much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth require § 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator Adulterer Murderer or Thief as I remember in England And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity and unrighteous justice § 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster or in the time of David George Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely And is he a lyar that saith it because they do not so now I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked as a Prophet before our eyes through the high street and they said they did so in many other places I know not the mans name now nor any of the multitude of Spectators if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him in vain to live But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for I must travel to the place before I could produce them § 8. Yea I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize or baptize the aged But fame saith they do so and none deny it If it prove false I shall be glad and will joyn in vindicating them And so I say of the present case And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting and rash ungrounded defamations of others CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words § 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them and alledging my words as justifying his cause I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers about a particular vindication of my words so triflingly and vainly used by them § 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them or the force of the arguments or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself The first I may well presume it is not If it were the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is If it be the second why do they use any arguments of mine when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author But seeing I must believe that the last is their business I can have leisure to say little more than this to them that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do and can reconcile my words when they cannot If this satisfie not them it satisfieth me § 3. In summ the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils 1. That most of them speak to the Question What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed Or the profession of a saving faith as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent And I prove that it is no other sort of faith but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts as the Condition of his Covenant And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith as to object or act but of this saving faith which the Church must accept to the admission of members A lower profession will serve for none 2. But I still maintain and I think fully proved that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent and doth Covenant with God as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract as in a lease for his life or the like Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child of an Owner a Governour and a Lover God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights as if he had done it himself and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents which in proper speech is They did it for him at Gods Command § 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings with those before and after that explain them or else if he will do as this man doth abuse
Donative Instrument of God which saith He that believeth shall be justified may effect my Justification when I believe and not before though my faith effect it not at all but dispose the recipient But I deny that the Parents faith being put all the capacity of the recipient is put even when he is born For if it be possible for the Parent to consent for himself and not for his child and to devote himself and not his child to God part of the condition of reception is wanting As far as I perceive could I but hope to be so happy a disputant as to convince Mr. T. that Church-membership visible is any benefit at all it self or was to the Israelites he would grant me all that I plead for of the conveyance of it by Covenant And if I cannot it is a hard case SECT LXXXVI R. B. THe second Commandment Exod. 20.5 6. Deut. 5.9 10. I think is a law and containeth a promise or premiant part wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the generations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments of which I have also spoken elsewhere to which I refer you I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise and discovery of Gods resolution concerning the children of all that love him whether Jews or Gentiles to whom this Commandment belongs nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Church-membership And that this is fetcht from the very gracious nature of God I find in his proclaiming his Name to Moses Exod. 34.6 7. Mr. T. If this mercy here imply Church-membership to the Infants of them that love him to a thousand Generations then it implieth it to all the Infants in the world But there is nothing to prove that this mercy must be Church-membership or that it must be to all the children of them that love God or that it must be to them in Infancy I incline to conceive this a promise of temporal mercies chiefly to the Israelites Reply 1. That it is not only of temporal mercies the words Love and Hate as the qualification of the Parents seem to prove and the joyning the children to the Parents in the retribution And all the terms seem above such a sense It is the revenge of a jealous God on Idolaters and mercy to his Lovers that is spoken of And the joyning this Command to the first which setleth our relation to God with the Laws annexed in Deut. for the cutting off whole Cities Parents and Children that turn from God to Idols sheweth that it reached to Church-Communion and Life 2. And that it was not only to the Israelites whatever you chiefly mean is proved both in that it is in the Decalogue and the proclaimed name of God Exod. 34.5 6. and exemplified throughout the Scripture and in the Gospel 2. As to the extent we can hardly expect that the world should endure a thousand Generations Therefore it can mean but that God who boundeth the punishment to the third and fourth generation will set no bounds to the succession of his mercies while our capacity continueth And whatever the mercies be the exposition of this continuance concerneth you as much as me 3. As to the conditions I doubt not but it supposeth that the child at age imitate the Parents in their Love or Hatred duty or sin And that if on Repentance the Parent be forgiven his sin may not be visited to the third and fourth And if a child of Godly Parents turn wicked the right is intercepted 4. But the Commandment with the foresaid exposition shews that God meaneth that his Retribuâ—ion to Parents that Love or Hate him shall extend to their children as such unless they interrupt it at age by their own acts And if to their children qua tales then to Infants And it speaketh such a state of mercy as cannot in reason be conceived to belong to them without and can mean no less than Gods visible favour by which the Church is differenced from the world when Lovers and Haters are distinguished sides And when God hath Recorded this decreed granted distinguished mercy to the children of the faithful as such in the Tables of stone sure it is a visible notification which will make them visible favorites and Church-members as soon as they visibly exist And the quatenus seemeth to me to prove that it extendeth to all the children of the faithful because it is to them as such But it followeth not that it must extend to them all alike as to equal mercies nor yet that the sin of Parents after may make no kind of forfeiture But of this I have said more in my Christian Directory SECT LXXXVII to XCIV R. B. IN Psal 102.28 It is a general promise the children of thy servants shall continue and their seed shall be established before thee It is usual in the Old Testament to express Gods favour by temporal blessings more than in the Gospel but yet still they secure us of his favour As I will not fail thee nor forsake thee might secure Joshua more than us of temporal successes and yet not more of Gods never failing favour There is a stable promise to all Gods people in general that have children Psal 103.17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousness unto childrens children And to be secured by promise of Gods mercy and righteousness is the state of none without the Church And if they were all to be kept out of the Church I scarce think that Children would be called an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb his reward Psal 127.3 nor the man happy that hath his quiver full of them Nor would the sucking children be called as part of the solemn assembly to the humiliation Joel 2.16 2 Chron. 20.13 There is a standing promise to all the just Prov. 20.7 The just man walketh in his integrity his children are blessed after him There is no sort of men without the Church that is pronounced blessed in Scripture A blessed people are Gods people and those are the Church separated from the cursed world One lower blessing will not denominate a man or society a blessed man or society If it were a good argument then Deut. 4.37 because he loved thy fathers therefore he chose their seed after them then it is good still as to favour in general So Deut. 10.15 Psal 69.36 Prov. 11.21 The seed of the righteous shall be delivered In Psal 37.26 there is a general promise to or declaration of the righteous that his seed is blessed and then they are Church-members In Isa 61.8 9. it is promised I think of Gospel times I will make an everlasting Covenant with them and their seed shall be known among the Gentiles and their off-spring among the people all that see them shall acknowledge them that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed And cap. 62.12 They shall call them the