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.

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 or donation, which doth not confer the benefit.] This I aver on oc∣casion of your last Letter, where in contradiction to the former, you confess [the promises to the na∣tural posterity of Abraham, Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and Deut. 29. and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses, of calling the people, and requiring them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. Deut. 29.] Yet you [do not conceive that the Infants of Israel were made visible Church-mem∣bers by the promises in the Covenants, or the pre∣cepts forenamed.] If so, then either you ima∣gine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Church-membership, or precept concerning their entrance into that state; or else you imagine that such promises were made, but did not actually confer the benefit, and such precepts were made, but did not actually oblige. Your words are so ambiguous in this, that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way. For when you say [there is no such particular promise concerning Infants visible

Church-membership, or precept, &c. besides Circumcision, as in my Book of Baptism I assert,] who knows whether that exception of [Circum∣cision] be a concession of such a precept or pro∣mise in the case of Circumcision? or if not, what sense it hath? and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert? and before the sense of your one syllable [such] is discerned by trying it by a whole volume, I doubt you will make what you list of it. However if you should mean, that such precepts there are as have for their subject [the avouching God to be their God, the entring into Covenant Circumcision] of Infants, but not their Church-membership; then, 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before; 2. And more shall do anon; 3. And it's a palpable con∣tradiction to the precedent affirmative. But if you mean that Church-membership of Infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts, and yet that In∣fants were not made or confirmed thereby; it is the contrary that I am asserting, and I have no further need to prove, than by shewing the con∣tradiction of your opinion to it self. For an actu∣al Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised (according to its tenor and terms,) is like a cause that hath no effect, a Father that did never generate, and it is all one as to say, a gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant, seeing the name is denied, when the thing named and defined is granted. So a Precept or Law to enter Infants solemnly into Church-membership, which yet obligeth none so to

enter them, is as gross a contradiction as to say, the Sun hath not heat or light, and yet is truly a Sun.

Mr. T. here confesseth, 2. That the Jews were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God, but by their promise to God: Gods call of them made them his Church, and their promise to God with other acts made them visibly so —

Reply. Reader, is not all here unsaid again by this concession? Unless he will say that this Call, and Covenant, and Promise made them all a visible Church, and yet none of these, but their birth and place made them members? As if any thing made the Whole Church which made none of the Parts as such.