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
calls it was thus declared Ergo Mr. T. And for his inference If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but Infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any Infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith Nor am I aâ—hamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not Reply Reader thou art not the person that I write for if thou perceive not here his cause notoriously given up and yet a noise of words used shamefully to hide what he is forced to confess 1. He granteth both that an Infant may be and was the chief Prophet of the Church and Infants may be Disciples 2. This is it that we dispute for which he expresly granteth 3. He denyeth the said Relation titles as in actu exercito and so do we that is that Christ then prophesied and Infants learn or believe 4. He talks confidently in this denial as if he would have fools believe that this were the difference and we held the contrary 5. But he is fain to juggle in the word audibly joyned to visibly for a paltry subterfuge that if we prove Christ visibly the Prophet we may not prove him audibly so 6. Yet it is such a visibility as maketh one known that he had in hand and before denied the visibility as here but if you prove that Christ was visibly the Prophet he can say but not audibly If you prove that he was audibly so in that Angels and Prophets audibly declared it he can say but not in actu exercito and by his own Prophesying which none denieth 7. And yet in the end he expresly without distinction denieth him to be any Prophet that Prophesieth not or them any Disciples that learn not when he had in terminis granted the contrary before and must needs therefore grant and deny by distinction In summ our cause is expresly granted us and expresly denied we plead for no other kind of membership to Infants but such as Christ had nor for any other sort of visibility than the visibility of their being the seed of persons consenting to Gods Covenant and Gods expressed will in his word that they should be offered to him by consenting Parents and that he will accept them and did conditionally first consent SECT XLVII XLVIII R. B. AS the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the Serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the Text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and we abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they apprehend him to be their enemy they abhor the very name and remembrance of him If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition If they know any temptation to be from him so far they dislike it and abhor it though for the thing presented they may cherish it This is not special saving grace but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace and to our more effectual resisting of temptations and entertaining the help that is offered us against them when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity and amity with him as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome that proveth not that it was not naturally there but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankind against the diabolical nature so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity malignity and works Vide Paraeum in locum God will put an enmity by his laws both natural and positive making it the duty of mankind to take Satan for their enemy to resist and use him as an enemy and fight against him and abhor his works and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him to take his colours and to be of his Army And this being spoken of the common world of mankind and not only of the elect for it is not they only that are obliged to this hostility and warfare belongeth to each one according to their capacities and therefore Infants being at the Parents dispose it is they that are to list them in this Army against the enemy of mankind of which more anon 6. A third and higher enmity is yet here comprehended and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works which may be called natural as it is the bent or byas of our new nature This God giveth only to his chosen and not to all And it containeth not only their consent to list themselves in his army against Satan but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his works universally to the death with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers Here take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity As God is one in three and in his entity hath unity verity and goodness and in his blessed nature hath posse scire velle power wisdom and love so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures as absolute proprietary as soveraign ruler and as most gracious benefactor As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical As soveraign Ruler he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty that we should be listed in his army profess open hostility against Satan and 〈◊〉 against him to the death As Benefactor he giveth special grace to do this to his chosen As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all As he is Rector of all but not by the same Laws as to positives so he obligeth all to this hostility but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list and makes a difference If any say
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
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
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
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
this But c. Not to be a Believer a disciple a Minister a Son of God There is the like reason for them as for this Answ Priviledges are 1. Proper to the adult those concern not our case as to be Ministers or common to them with Infants 2. Priviledges consist either in Physical qualities or other Physical accidents and these are given by physical Action and such is Knowledge Belief Love Gifts of utterance health c. Or in Right and Moral Relation Jus Debitum obligatio These are given by Moral means that is by signification of the Donors will by precept obliging promise or signal Donation which is the Instrument of conveyance by that signification As a Testament Deed of Gift Act of pardon and oblivion c. are among men Now do you think that the reason of Physical Qualities and Moral Rights Relations and duties is the same 2. As a Disciple or believer signifieth one that is Reputatively such jure Relationis and as a Son of God signifieth an Adopted heir of heaven loved of God as a reconciled Father in Christ so Infants are such You say after that Christ was habitually and by designation the Head and Prophet of the Church in Infancy and so mihgt Infants be disciples And will you now deny it Again I will say though it offend you that there is no trusting to that mans judgement that looketh all or partially on one side and studieth so eagarly what will serve his cause as that he cannot mind what may be said against it See here what two abhominations you thrust on your pittiful followers which yet I know you hold not your self but the heat of your spirit in desire of victory draweth you to say you mind not what You conclude that none is A Son of God without his own consent And so 1. All Infants are certainly shut out of Heaven for they are no Sons of God without their consent neither by Election Christs intercession Covenant or Gift And I think you will not say that they consent And if no sons no heirs For the Inheritance is only of children And if no sons then are they not Regenerate which is but to be made sons of God by a new Generation and renewed to his Image And do you damn all Infants 2. And consider whether you deny not Christ in Infancy to have been the Son of God according to his humane nature For you can never prove that in that nature he actually consented in the womb or in his Infancy But partiality is rash and blind Mr. T. 12. If there be no Law or ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this Infant visible Church-membership is granted or the listing of Infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then it is not a cause of Infants visible Church-membership which Mr. B. assigns c. Answ I have here proved to you such a Law and Covenant before Christs Incarnation and formerly at large proved it to be continued and renewed by special signification of Christs will since his Incarnation in the Gospel Review now your pittiful Reasons against it The Second Part A CONFUTATION OF THE Strange FORGERIES OF Mr. H. DANVERS Against the ANTIQUITY OF INFANT BAPTISM And of his many Calumnies against my Self and my Writings with a Catalogue of 56 New Commandments and Doctrines which he and the Sectaries who joyn with him in those Calumnies seem to own By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson 1675. The PREFACE SECT I. 1. Of Controversies 2. Of the Weight of this Controversie § 1. IT is a thing that all are not duely informed of How far Controversial Writings and Disputes are to be practised by pious and peaceable men And here as in almost all things else men are hardly cured of one extream but by another I. No doubt but the extream which hath far most injured the Church of Christ hath been the excess of Disputing and given just occasion to Sr. W.'s motto The Itch of Disputing makes the Scab of the Church which is easily discernable both in the Cause and the Effects § 2. 1. In the cause it is too notorious that ordinarily it proceedeth from the depravation of the three faculties of the soul Potestative Intellective Volitive in the three great Principles of iniquity Pride Ignorance and wrath § 3. 1. Did not Pride cause men much to overvalue their own parts and worth Controversie would have shrunk into a narrower compass before this day Men would have come to one another as friends to be informed of what they know not by enquiry and gentle conferences if not as children to School to learn And if grace by hard studies had given one man more insight into any matters than another humility would readily have acknowledged Gods gifts and desired to have the benefit of a friendly communication and whereever God had set up a light the Children of his family would have been ready to work by it It would not have been so hard as now it is for an Ignorant man to know his Ignorance nor to discern when another knoweth more than he § 4. But now alas a multitude that understand not half their Catechism hear their Teachers as Masters hear their Scholars to know whether they say their lesson well or not And the Preacher that saith as they would have him may pass for orthodox at least if not for a very wise man because he is so far as wise as they But if he will presume to teach them more than they know they suspect him of heresie and the repetition of his Sermon which they make is to mangle some sentences which they had not wit enough to understand and thence to proclaim or whisper abroad at least that the Preacher hath some dangerous errors and doth not know so much as they unless it be some luscious unwholesom notions that he offereth them or be a militant wrangler and would list them under him as his troop to serve him in some new raised war and then corrupt nature can magnifie novelties as if they were new revelations from Heaven § 5. And O that the Teachers wanted not the sense of their intellectual imperfections as well as the people But too many think that when they are all ordained into the same office the honour of the same office is equally due to them all and consequently all that honour of Knowledge Parts and Piety without which the honour of the office cannot be well kept up And so when they all walk in the same robes and are called by the same titles matters which they never understood must pass according to the major vote or at least they must not be contradicted nor their ignorance made known And therefore when they have owned or uttered a Doctrine or Sentence their honour is engaged to make it good And they find a far easier way to make ostentation of the Knowledge which they have not by robes titles and
they had would that prove that the Novatians were seven hundred or eight hundred years before § 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism the sixth Council of Carthage saying that All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy and saith It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not and can signifie nothing against all the former evidence And is it not shame and pity that so publick matters of fact must be handled at this rate What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at to find that one called a man and a Christian and too good for the communion of such as we should be guilty of And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so publick a matter of History as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be produced if it were of any need And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatists hold so well as he and such as he § 30. His next witnesses are the ancient Britains that having received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles times did intirely keep thereto whom Austin the Monk would have engaged especially in Christening children and keeping Easter but in asmuch as they utterly refused to be seduced by him therein c. Answ This is a witness being such a body of witnesses of great importance as that of the Donatists and Novatians was if it were true But it 's all false still And must our own Countrey yea all our Christian Ancestors be thus slandered Whether Britain received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles time if he mean in that time is very doubtful and nothing to our business we have no sufficient proof of any such thing The Reason of the case maketh me conjecture that Christianity was first brought hither by Soldiers of the Roman Legions especially since I read in Beda that the first Temple I find any mention of was built at or near Canterbury by such Soldiers But who ever brought it it 's like they were of the Asian and not the Roman opinion whether Soldiers that had been in the Asian Legions or who else is not known and it is certain that they were not against the observation of Easter For both they and the Scots that concurred with them against the Romans did strictly keep it But all the question was of the due time § 31. Nor is there the least proof or probability that they were against Infant Baptism 1. Because Augustine the Monk that quarrelled with them never chargeth them with it in his Ep. to Gregory or to themselves 2. Beda that was downright against them and a Roman zealot and the ancientest writer after Austins time and lived in the same Country with them and knew them and describeth all the contests with them yet never layeth any such thing to their charge when yet he mentioneth the Rebaptizing of One by Bishop John because it was an ignorant insufficient man for the Priesthood that Baptized him and this a rare instance 3. The Scots that about Easter and other contrarieties to the Romans were of the Britains mind and refused so much as to eat with the Romans yet are charged with no such thing 4. And the controversie continued for above an hundred years after Austins time and great stir and meetings and disputes were about it as Beda tells us at large before the Scots were changed And in all that time there would have been opportunity for their forward adversaries especially Wilfrid afterward St. Boniface of Mentz who was the Chief to have found out this matter of accusation 5. None of the historians near following those times do charge any such thing on them And yet were the old Britains against Infant-Baptism § 32. But to put all out of doubt take the words of Austin to them in his three demands thus by Beda recorded Eccl. Hist li. 2. c. 2. Vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut Ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Romae sanctae Ecclesiae et Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum domini That is 1. That you celebrate Easter at the due time 2. That ye compleat the Ministry of Baptism by which we are born again to God according to the fashion or manner of the holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church 3. That you Preach with us the word of God to the English Nation And what is here of Infant-Baptism How proveth he that that was meant by the Roman manner or fashion of Baptizing Is the subject of Baptism the Manner when about the Manner indeed there were then so many and different ceremonies Nay when above an hundred years before this Austins dayes a wiser Austin had told the Donatists that the whole Church was agreed for Infant-Baptism and no one Christian held it to be in vain sure this was not so long after a Manner peculiar to Rome But thus the honour of our Ancestors and the history of the Church and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us must all be heinously wronged by the falshoods of rash presuming ignorant men § 33. And if this had been as true as it is false that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism it would inform these men that it is not delaying Baptism till riper age that will keep it from formality nor the Church from falling into all impiety For if our eldest historian Gildas may be believed and who may if not he his Countrymen the Britains were Princes Priests and People fallen to such abhominable wickedness murder drunkenness filthy lusts deceit theft cruelty c. that he takes the Princes for wolves and monsters and the Priests for no Priests but traytors excepting some good men among them c. It is neither Infant nor Adult Baptism that will secure against the corrupting of Churches but Grace with either hath saved souls § 34. He cites himself here Fox quoting Beda Polychron and others And what say they Baptizing after the manner of Rome And what 's that to his question But he tells you that Faâ—â—an saith that you give Christendom to children I have not Fabian to examine but if he do when he knoweth that he is an empty fâ—llow of the other day as it were and that he hath nothing but what cometh from Gregory and Beda and that in them there is no such thing will a kâ—â—wn â—aâ—sification of a 〈◊〉 about nine hundred years after disprove the yet vâ—â—ible words of the 〈…〉 which undertake to give you not only the seâ—se but the very terâ—◠§ 35. He proceedeth to prove by argument that the Britains were against-Infant Baptism 1. Because they