by a Legal right to it antecedent to their being such visible Church-members which they or any for them might claim as due Nor was it capable of being duly and rightfully received or usurped For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people who were in appearance from things sensible Gods people and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly viz. his forming them and bringing them into the world and placing them Reply More mystery still 1. Was there no antecedent Law or Covenant of God giving a jus societatis a Right of membership to Abrahams seed as soon as they had a being initially and commanding them to be devoted to God in Covenant and Circumcised that they by investiture might have a plenary Right Was there no such thing O but this gave them not a right to it before they had it Is the poor Church to be thus abused and holy things thus played with They could not be members before they had a being nor could lay claim to it But could not Gods Law Grant or Instrumental Covenant be made before they were born And could it not be the Instrument of conveying right to them as soon as they were born that is as soon as they were subjects capable And is not the cause in order of nature though not of time before the effect Cannot the Law of the Land be the fundamental cause of the Right of Infants to Honours and Estates though till they are in being they are not capable subjects Is not the Action ut agentis naturally antecedent to it as in patiente Is it only Gods transeunt fact of making them men and these men and placing them in England which maketh Infants to be members of the English Nobility or Gentry or Citizens or members of this Kingdom No but it is the Laws that do morally give the Jus dignitatis vel societatis though their action be not terminated in any subject till it exist For every man born in England is not born a Lord or Esquire or Citizen no nor a free subject unless the Law say it shall be so If Foreigners or Rebels should have children here and the Law were that they shall be Aliens they would be no members of the Kingdom If Mr. T. or Mr. D's children have nothing but Generation and being born in England to shew for their Inheritance their Title will not hold 2. And might not right have been falsly pleadded or usurped by a counterfeit Jew Or the children of such Or the children of Apostates who yet were born of Abrahams seed and in that Land Whatsoever they were that Nehemiah used severely I am sure Achans children and the Infants of the Cities that were to be consumed for Idolatry lost their right to life and Church-membership at once by their Parents sin And God might if he had pleased have continued the Life of Apostates children without continuing their Church-right Or Apostates might and no doubt multitudes did escape the justice of the Law through the fault of Magistrates or people and yet have no true Legal Right to Church-membership for themselves or Infants born after For he that hath lost his right to life hath lost his right or may do to the priviledges and benefits of it He addeth yet I grant they had a right in it that is that they had it by Gods donation Reply And was it not a Moral Donation then if it gave Right You will be forced thus to confute your self Mr. T. It seems to me not true that the nature of the benefit of Infants visible membership consisteth in a right to further benefits Reply Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so If we are at this pass about Relations and Right in general no marvail if Infant Baptism go for Antichristian Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen or of the member of any priviledged society consist in his state of Right to the Benefits Priviledges and Communion of the Society and an obligation to the duties of a member to the end he may have the benefits and the Society the benefit of his membership and duty A conjunction of Right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and obligation constituteth all such Relations But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here Next Mr. T. denieth the consequence For a man may have a benefit without right Reply 1. And yet just now Church-membership in Israel was a thing that none could usurp or have without right 2. But I said no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it And therefore if God give such a thing as Church-membership which consisteth in a Right to further benefits he that hath it by Gods gift hath it rightfully Natural effects as a prey to a thief may be said to be given of God improperly by Physical disposal to him that hath no right But right it self cannot be given to him that hath no right nor any thing else Relative or Natural by Gods Moral or Covenant donation He conceiveth it to be very erroneous that visible Church-membership is given out of distributive Justice for as Regeneration so also visible membership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord not of distributive Justice by God as Judge 2. That all that any man hath of God he hath of debt contrary to Rom. 4.4 3. That visible Church-membership is conceived as a thing offered and to be duly and rightfully received Reply If Mr. T. and I shall tire the Printer and wast Paper and trouble the world with telling them how many errors each of us hold it will be an unsavory task and I doubt it would be a much shorter work for one of us which ever it is to enumerate the useful truths we hold What I hold be it right or wrong I will tell the Reader as to this matter I hold that Gods Kingdom is to be considered in its Constitution and Administration The first hath 1. The efficient 2. The Constitutive 3. The final Causes And in the large sense it containeth 1. Subjects only by obligation such as Rebels are 2. Subjects by consent or voluntary The Efficient cause of the former is only Gods 1. Making them men and Redeemed men quoad precium and commanding their subjection or consent To the effecting of the second is besides these required their Actual Consent Parents consenting for their Infants without which they are but Rebels and have no right to the benefits of the Society God being a King de jure before his Government is Consented to maketh a Law to man to command them to consent and be his voluntary subjects To those that consent as the condition he promiseth the interest and blessings of his Covenant viz. Christ and Life and threatneth the privation of those benefits and sorer punishment to refusing rebels He is Lawgiver and will be Judge of Non-consenters called Vnbelievers and
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
even visible mutual covenanting make not Church-members visible what doth You see what he hath brought the ancient and later Church-membership Circumcision and Baptism to I think to nothing As formal Pontifician Church-tyrants when they have mortified some ordinance and turned it into an Image make an engine of it to trouble the Church and silence the Preachers and serious practisers of the Gospel with These men make nothing of Church-membership and then restlesly trouble the Church-about it SECT XXVI R. B. HAving thus opened the terms Law and Precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their Children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a Law or Precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a Law or Precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. It was against no Law 2. It is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of Law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but only non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad poenam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no Law obligeth ad poenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their Children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some Law or Precept as its proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some Law or Precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no Law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the Law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankful If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a Law or Precept For a Precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no Law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the Law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithful and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own Ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a Law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a Law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring Infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate Infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law for this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a Law or Precept 3. We shall anon produce the Law or Precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of its own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without Precepts or Laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a Son without a Father or any relation without its foundation or effect without its cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Mr. T. would first perswade the Reader that I mean nothing but Circumcision Reply Long ago I told you that 1. The Females were not circumcised 2. Nor the Males for forty years in the wilderness And yet were all Church-members by being Gods Covenanted people And so was Israel before Circumcision His terms of the hissing of a Goose and the snarling of a Cur and other such I account lighter than the least of his injuries to the truth SECT XXVII R. B. THE fifth Question requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no Law or Precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise
would not be harmonical So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability so say they the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him So that as he could not let-sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessarily be punished for evil or rewarded for good that is he might have made him not a man yet having so made him it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity And if the immortality may be so proved from its nature then also its felicity in case of righteousness I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express 1. It is most certain whether the reward or promise be natural or positive that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to or in part and the way to more And it is most certain that man was made holy devoted to God and fit for his service and that in this estate according to the Law of his creation he was to increase and multiply It is most certain therefore that according to the first law of nature Infants should have been Church-members 2. But if their opinion hold that make the reward grounded on the law of nature and not on a meer positive law and you see the reasons are not contemptible then the argument would be yet more advantagious 3. But however it be of the title to glory or eternity it is most certain that according to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had stood The first Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-membership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own Image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency and so Church-members And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate Children in their own estate to be as the Parents were even in Gods Image Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-membership it proves not their visible Church-membership Reply Mark Reader that Gods Law and blessing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members though members What not so notorious a Law and Covenant and Benediction No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out if Innocent Adams must have been shut out He adds 2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance yet not suâ—h a Law or Ordinance as is in question which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates Reply Alas poor Readers that must be thus wearied I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes I know no Right given but it is eventually given nor received but it 's eventually received Admission is an ambiguous word My dictates as he calls them are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God by consenting to his Covenant for themselves and them 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Baptismal Covenanting Ordinance 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them and signifieth his consent to the mutual Covenant which is antecedently to their consent but a conditional consent or Covenant but consequently aâ—tual 4. That accordingly natural interest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member meerly because he is his BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his Creation and Redemption he is a Church-member initially upon heart-consent and by Investiture upon Sacramental consent which I think you mean by Admission 3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove such a Law or Ordinance yet it proves it not such a promise and precept as Mr. B. asserteth Reply Must such dealing as this go for an answer What 's the difference Mr. T. addeth 4. If it did yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature Reply You are hard put to it I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Ordinance Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an Increase and Multiply signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him if Adam had not sinned and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God Alas many go so much further as to assert as truth that had Adam stood nay but in that one temptation yea say some had he but once loved God all his posterity had not been only born Holy but confirmed as the Angels I cannot prove that but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned and so had been visible members And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature let awakened reason think whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children and children in Parents and then whether God have ever reverst this natural order Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it It seemeth out of doubt to me I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt but withal upon the promise of a Redeemer an universal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place Let them deny it that can and dare And it intimateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct interest with their Parents He saith that the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling not birth I would desire him if he can to tell me whether both Cain and Abel were not visible Church-members in Adams family And whether none but the Elect are visible members And whether God call not them that are visible members to that state He saith If this Law be in force all are born without sin Reply The Covenant of Innocency is not in force but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force and that Infants visible Church-membership was founded in Nature and that Law at first And therefore though our Innocency be lost Parents are Parents still And if God
he never gave right to it by promise 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes If besides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie God will save many in a neutral state why may he not saith the ungodly save me also for Infants once deserved punishment by original sin And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves he may do so by me 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know that die in Infancy And do all the promises to the seed of the faithful in the second Commandment and Exod. 34.7 and many another Text mean no such thing as they speak as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition but only I will save my elect And why might not this Covenant I will save my Elect be made with Cain or Cham or Judas as well as with Abraham 2. He saith Abrahams Infants were visible Church-members but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical Reply What a bare put off is that of a man that must say something Is it at all by the Covenant as Evangelical If yea we have our desire If not what meaneth barely but the nakedness of your ill cause 3. Then cometh next And if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk or will not know it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply See Reader some more of the mysterie Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house but Church-membership signified but houshold and civil promises Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult But we may yet mistake him For rather is not a negative It is Rather than Evangelical which is but a preference not a denial O for plain honesty in things divine SECT L. R. B. 2. THat the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Church-member that had Infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose Infants also were not Church-members Except only the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ And whether their Infants be Church-members I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one Infant of a Church-member in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Church-member except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Reply Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer save a cross challenge oft answered and the instance of Timothy To which I say that if Timothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were But his Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal SECT LI. R. B. 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 saith 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 resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereof 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 Church-member 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 Mediator 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 Reply Here is so little said that needs but this remarke that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly which being Accepted of God is to Church-membership as private Marriage to publick where publication is wanting But he denieth that Parents may dedicate them by Baptism But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature if he cannot confute it let him not strive and sin against nature SECT LII R. B. 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 Mr. T. 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 and so are kept in presumption c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism c. Reply This nearly concerneth our cause I once inclined to these thoughts my self But I am satisfied 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from personal serious Covenanting with God at age We tell our Children and all the adult that their Infant Covenanting by Parents will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves And that without as serious a faith and consent of
their own then as if they had never been baptized they cannot be saved What hurt then as to this doth their Infant interest do them 2. Yea doubtless it is a great help For 1. To be in the way of Gods Ordinance and Benediction is much 2. And knowing you deny that I add to be conscious of an early engagement may do much to awe the minds of Children yea and to cause them to love that Christ which hath received them and that Society to which they belong 3. If Children till Baptized have any thoughts of dying according to you they must have little hopes of mercy And God accounteth not the spirit of bondage best no not for Children They cannot well be educated in the Love of God who must believe that they are damned if they die and that God hath not given them any promise of life 4. Experience of many Moors servants among us and in our Plantations besides ancient history assureth us that delaying Baptism till age tendeth to make people delay repentance and think I am but as I was and if I sin longer all will be pardoned at baptism and I must after live strictlier and therefore as Constantine and many more they will be baptized Christians when there is no remedy 5. And experience assureth us that it were the way to work out Christianity and restore Infidelity in any Nation For had not Christ early possession and were not Nations discipled and baptized Christians were like to be almost as thin as Puritans now and the multitude being Infidels from a cross interest such as divisions cause would be ready on all occasions as they did in Japan and Monicongo to root them out I take this to be a very concerning consideration whether in reason Infant Baptism be like to do more good or harm The not calling men to serious Covenanting at age doth unspeakable harm To have a few good words about Confirmation in the Liturgie and such as Doct. Hammonds writings of it will not save ignorant ungodly souls nor the souls of the Pastors that betray them I have said my thoughts of this long ago in a Treatise of Confirmation But I must profess that it seemeth to me that if Christ had left it to our wills it is much liker to tend to the good of souls and the propagating Christianity and the strength of the Church for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant Covenant and Church state and as serious a Covenanting also at age when we pass into the Church state of the Adult than to be without the former and left to the expectation of adult baptism alone SECT LIII to LVIII R. B. 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 is 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 participation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtful cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sense So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own When they speak of duty to God they must be interpreted in the strictest sense When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sense that they will bear 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 self-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 than 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 unlawful 3. It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more than a silent leave of Infants Church-membership 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 Vpon so much encouragement and hope 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 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 child 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 child 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 only 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 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 Church-members 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 Common-wealths in the world perfecte sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the laws and capable of honours 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 Church-members 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. Vnder 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 than 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 immunities of that society 2. We have no reason when the design of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much less under the Gospel to the members of Christ than 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 slow thence Exod. 34. and in the second Commandment 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 Texts 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 natural guilt So much of that Reply Mr. T. saith nothing to all that I think the Reader needeth a reply to SECT LVIII R. B. 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 sense Ergo the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sense 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 till they come to use of reason themselves The Parents therefore by the light and law of 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 free 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 will 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 some of the fundamental title that Infants of Believers have to Church-membership and our obligation to dedicate them to God Reply Mr. T. saith that some acts of the Parents are legally taken for the childs is not denied But here he denieth it and I leave his denial with my copious proof in my Treatise of Infant-baptism to the Readers SECT LIX R. B. YOu must now in reason expect that infants Church-membership 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 than 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 Church-membership 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 Infants were Church-members once You only conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conceit hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed when Abraham 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 Church-membership of Infants but only an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing Reply To this Mr. T. still affirmeth that Infants Church-membership was proper to the Hebrews only Reader though they had their peculiarities is it credible that the Infants of that one small country only should be so differently dealt with by God from all the world else even Henoch 's Noe 's Sem 's and all from Adam to the end of the world that these Infants only should be Church-members and no others what unlikely things yea against evidence can some believe SECT LX LXI LXII R. B. NOW for the Texts that further intimate such a foregoing establishment 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living For it is to be noted what Bishop Usher saith Annal. vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum post semen promissum mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum Gen. 3.20 quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius Messiam promissum quomodo post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita 1 Pet. 3.6 Gal. 4.31 He put this name on her after the promise because she was to be the mother of all the living not only that live the life of nature but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed So that as she was
his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terms Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sign of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a sign of Gods will de jure because â—hat is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debito â—f some due 2. I say conferring or confirming â—ight to some benefit to difference it from preâ—epts which only determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Mr. T. If we prove by another grant or deed of gift Physical or Moral which is not a promise or by any Law which is not such a precept he contradicts not my speech c. Reply Your words are I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining that it should be so that Infants should be members of the Jewish Church but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing and I think it were a foolish undertaking to prove the repeal of a fact Peruse his words Reader SECT XIX XX XXI R. B. HAving thus explained the terms I prove the proposition If Infants Church-membership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him and to be separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way If Infant Church-membership were no benefit then they that had it were not when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time obliged to any thankfulness for it But they were obliged to be thankful for it Ergo it was a benefit Mr. T. Denyeth not the benefit but denyeth that this is to be Visible members formally or connexively for they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church-members viz. some believing Saints that are dumb Reply Mark Reader what an issue our Controversies with these men come to Men may be the covenanted people of God and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people and be separated from the common and unclean from the world from strangers to the Covenant c. and yet be no visible Church-members with them Doth a dumb man signifie his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not If he do that is visible covenanting If not how is he one of these covenanting and separated people And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenanting and separation and not only of a secret unexpressed heart-consent What will make a Church-member then with such men He next saith that To be the circumcision is not all one as to be visible Church-members Cornelius and his house were visible Church-members yet not the circumcision Reply Reader dost thou not marvail to find him so plead for me against himself or speak nothing to the case To be circumcised then or baptized now is not all one as to be visible Church-members But sure all the Circumcised were and all the Baptized are invested in visible membership Is it not so And if Cornelius and more of the uncircumcised also were members you see it was not inseparable from Circumcision And whom is this against me or him He addeth nor were the benefits Rom. 3.1 2. the oracles of God c. conferred to them as visible Church-members For then all visible Church-members had been partakers of them Reply But it was to them as members of the Jewish visible Church And if you plead for the extent of the Church to others also I thank you for it When I say Infant Church-membership was a benefit He saith Visible Church-membership simply notes only a state by which was a benefit Reply Only is an exclusive term Reader by this thou maist perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact without a Law or promise It is no benefit with these men but a state by which was a benefit Either they or I then know not at all what Church-membership is And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is and about a term which we agree not of the sense of I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible To be a Member is to be a Part It is therefore as the member of a Family School Kingdom a related part And is it no benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his body to be relatively a member of the Houshold of God Sure were it but for the exclusion of the miserie of the contrary state and for the Honour of it such a Relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and the Church is some little benefit and great to me And whether he and Major Danvers and such others should make such a vehement stir about it as they do if it be no benefit let it be considered SECT XXII R. B. THE next thing in the antecedent to be proved is that there was a right conferred to this benefit and some had a right in it And 1. If any had the benefit then had they right to or in that benefit But some had the benefit Ergo. The consequence of the major is certain 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits 2. If any had the benefit of Church-membership Covenant-interest c. without right then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it Not with it For he is just and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in Not without it For no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it 2. If no Infants had duly and rightfully received this benefit God would have somewhere reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits But that he doth not as to this case Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many Texts of Scripture of which more afterward Mr. T. The Infants of the Jews were visisible Church-members not
change not his order therein are as capable of consenting to Grace for their Children as they were of being innocent for them SECT XLVI R. B. THe next Institution of Infants Church-membership was at the first proclamation of grace to fallen man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that Infants should be Church-members And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having plaied the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he might haâ—e done But in grace or undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conquered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect conquest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an Infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an Infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the Infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an Infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the Infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an Infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars imperans and pars subdita do constitute each Common-wealth So that if an Infant must be a member eminently so called then Infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an Infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but Infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old string and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in Infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an Infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have Infants members because the head is the principal member Mr. T. The thing to be proved is a Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed Reply The thing I am to do is to shew you when and how God instituted Infants Church state And that he never had a Church on earth that excluded them And particularly to shew you that they are included in the first edition of the Covenant of Grace made to Adam which is perfected in a second edition but not repealed This I think I have done Mr. T. addeth that It will not hold from Christs Headship in Infancy c. 1. It is not declared in Scripture and so a meer phanâ—y 2. Then an Infant in the womb should be a visible member because then Christ was Head of the Church 3. Then an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man Reply 1. Irenaeus thought it would hold who giveth this reason of it And I leave the Reader to consider whether the words cited prove it not Sure I am it greatly satisfieth my judgement that God hereby declared his will to include Infants in his Church visibly For the Head is a Member even the noblest Therefore one Infant is confessed by you to be a visible member of the Church And if one it will be incumbent on you to prove the rest uncapable or excluded When I read that Christ came not into the world at the statute that Adam did but chose to be an Infant and to be persecuted in Infancy and to have Infants murdered for his sake first and to invite and use them as he did it is not the rowling over of your wearisom dry denials and confident absurdities that will perswade me that Christ shutteth out all Infants And I am sure that the Instance confuteth your common exceptions against Infants As that they are not Disciples because they learn not which yet they may be in the same sense as Christ was their Master in infancy when he Taught not And that their Infancy did not incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God to be Christians to be Church-members c. Christ shewed in that in Infancy he bore all the Counter-relations and was in the Covenant of God as Mediator and that as far as we can judge only by a virtual and not actual consent in his Infancy and humane nature to the Covenant of mediation Mr. T. saith Then an Infant in the womb may be a Church-member Reply Yes in the same sense as Christ in the womb was the Churches head not by the solemn Investiture of Baptism but by Consent For believing Parents do dedicate their children to God intentionally when they are in the womb But a man would think that you your self should acknowledge that this dedication and so the visibility of membership hath its gradations to perfection Are not your proselytes visible members in one degree when they openly profess Christianity as Constantine did and in a further degree when baptised The interest of your opinion puts frivolous reasons into your mind which a child might see through Mr. T. addeth Then an old man should not be a member Reply Could you think now that you did not cheat your poor Reader if partiality had not shut one of your eyes It will follow from the affirmative that such a state of