Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A26959
|
More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
|
Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing B1312; ESTC R17239
|
210,005
|
430
|
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
work of a grant or promise to confer these and not directly of a precept Secondly the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit and this is the work of a Law or Precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these For you cannot imagine that any Infant had the blessing without a grant or promise that 's impossible nor that any Parents lay under a duty without an obliging law for that is as impossible Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolved in both these and so yield that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said than is said yet I shall think it needless till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you proved to be reversed Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts while you confess in general that such a promise and precept there is by vertue of which Infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church for Christs Church it was even his universal visible Church Still remember that I take the word law not strictly for a precept only but largely as comprehending both promise and precept and I have already shewed you both and so have others So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness I am willing to second you in viz. that at the age you desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ and their resolution to be his But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here than to spend my time to prove that no Infants of believers are within Christs visible Church that is are no Infant Disciples Infant Christians Infant Church-members I know no glory it will bring to Christ nor comfort to man nor see I now any appearance of truth in it I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy and that I was dedicated so soon to God and not left wholly in the Kingdom and power of the Devil They that despise this mercy or account it none or not worth the accepting may go without it and take that which they get by their ingratitude And I once hoped that much less than such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers or at least the preventing of others Apostasie which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you than again to write against rebaptizing or for Infant Baptism Sir I remain your imperfect brother knowing but in part yet loving the truth Rich. Baxter Mr. Tombes his second Letter Sir I confess Infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Church-members that is of the Congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing and I think it were a foolish undertaking for me to prove the repeal of a fact Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that Law Ordinance Statute or Decree of God is that is repealable that is which may in congruous sence be either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law for ever This I never found in your books nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where that Law is Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers as you call them And I think you do unjustly impute the direful consequences you speak of to the denial of Infant Baptism and to the practice of adult Baptism and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others I yet expect your Texts knowing none in any of your Books that mention that law of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly and am Bewdly April 4. 1655. yours as is meet John Tombes Richard Baxters second Letter Sir If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work let me request you to tell me fully exactly and plainly what transient fact you mean which you conceive without law or promise did make Church-members that so I may know where the competition lieth When I know your meaning I intend God willing to send you a speedy answer to your last April 16. 1655. Your fellow-servant Rich. Baxter Mr. Tombes his third Letter Sir The transeunt fact of God whereby Infants were visible Church-members was plainly exprest in my last to you to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people which is the expression of Moses Deut. 4.34 Exod. 6.7 And by it I mean that which is expressed Levit. 20.24.26 when God said I have severed you from other people that you should be mine The same thing is expressed 1 Kings 8.53 Isai 43.1 This I term fact as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it Following herein Stephen Acts 7.2 and Nehem. 9.7 I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Vr Gen. 12.1 to which succeeded in their times the enlarging of his family removing of Lot Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esau distinction by Circumcision the birth of Isaac Jacob his leading to Padan Aram increase there removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving there and chiefly the bringing of them thence to which principally the Scripture refers this fact Exod. 19.4 Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 Hos 11.1 the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them laws settling their Priesthood tabernacle army government inheritance By which fact the Infants of the Israelites were visible Church-members as being part of the Congregation of Israel and in like manner though not with equal right for they might be sold away were the bought servants or captives whether Infants or of age though their Parents were professed Idolaters And this I said was without promise or precept meaning such promise or precept as you