to Write or teach him Musick Arithmetick Geometry Latine Greek or Hebrew Logick or Grammar or any Art though but such as Labourers get their daily bread by XXXI Ib. That it is a sin for those in Italy or any Kingdom that can have no other to let a Popish Priest teach their Children the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten-Commandments which all Christians are agreed in but it 's better that they never learned a word of the Bible or Christian-Faith than learn it of such a Priest so sinfully did Bishop Usher make the motion to the Priests in Ireland that Protestants and they might joyn in teaching the barbarous people the Creed and common principles of Religion XXXII Ib. That it is a sin to hear a Popish Priest read Gods word or any good book though it were a Protestants or one of the Ancient Fathers or to hear him speak the truest Doctrine though in a Country where it can no other way be heard or learned XXXIII Ib. That in such a Country where there is no other it is a sin to joyn with one of them in any Prayer how good soever though craving a blessing on our meat or in a Family or elsewhere even in the Lords Prayer XXXIV Ib. That it is necessary to Salvation to believe that the Pope is Antichrist and so no man woman or child can be saved that believeth it not And so since Antichrist arose we have a new Article in our Creed Even for those that know not what the Pope is whether male or female flesh or fish XXXV Ib. That it is a sin to read any good book in the Church besides the Scripture any Chapter in the Apocrypha any Homily or Sermon though written by an Anabaptist and though we declare what it is and mention it for no other end but what it is written for as we cite Authors as witnesses And yet it is lawful for Mr. D. to publish many falsly in Print XXXVI Ib. That it is a sin to read a Prayer in the Church though it were the Prayer of Christ John 17. or of Moses or others in the Psalmes or any others XXXVII Ib. That if one pray Mr. Danvers to pray for him it is Idolatry or if the people or sick pray the Minister to pray for them or Children their Parents or if one should do so by an Angel that should appear to him or to a Saint or Angel unseen imagining that he were present this is not only Superstition and so sinful but also Idolatry which is giving Gods proper worship to a creature And consequently it is the proper worship of God only to pray him to pray for us to himself XXXVIII Ib. That it is a sin to bow the knee at the naming of Jesus though we renounce all in it that is superstitious and scandalous and bow equally at the name of God Jehovah Christ c. XXXIX Ib. That it is a sin to stand when the Gospel is read though we be never so weary of sitting and stand equally at the reading of all the rest of the Scripture or at Sermon without distinction so heynously did the Vniversal Church sin for many hundred years in their long standings and so sinful a thing it is to hear in a Church or Meeting-place that hath no seats unless we sit on the ground XL. Ib. That it is a sin to kneel while the Ten-Commandments are read though it be by women whose custom that posture is upon a boss through the rest of the daies exercise and though it be never so openly declared that we take them not for a prayer nor do it to any ill signification or intent XLI Iib. That he sinneth who doth not condemn the Universal Church of Christ for many hundred years of the greatest antiquity that we have any records of since the Apostles for their worshipping with their faces towards the East Though he should himself dislike that practice and never use it nor consent to have it used XLII Ib. That it is a sin to say that any children of any wicked men in the world have any guilt of any of their nearer Parents sins but only of Adams And consequently it must be held that God unjustly threatned and punished any such children for their Parents sin from the daies of Cain Cham Pharaoh Ishmael Esau Achan Gehezi till the daies of that Generation threatned Matth. 23. And also that no man receiveth any pravity from Adam neither because it must pass to him through his next Parents and be theirs and he receiveth none that is theirs And so all Nations are justified against all guilt of any Parents sin but Adam and warranted to deny to confess any such guilt or to be beholden to Christ or mercy for the pardon of it though David Daniel and Nehemiah did otherwise I say again either Mr. D. and his like do really hold the contraries of the assertions of mine which he thus notifieth as heynous errors or not If not he raileth against his Conscience in hypocrisie If yea then these propositions which I have named to you are the contraries to mine And it is so cursed a thing to add two and fourty New Commandments to the Law of God that I who think them to be no better do again and again desire him to give me the full proof of all these strange Commandments and tell me where they are written if I have overlookt them If this cannot be obtained I call to his imitators and my backbiters to let me know whether really they will own all these and give me leave to tell the World and the Ages to come that these were their Doctrines for the love of which they whispered or clamoured against me But here he stops and pittieth the Reader and referreth them to my Book it self And I will joyn with him and add that the Reader that will think that he knoweth what I hold or wrote by this and such like mens citations or reports and will not read the Book it self and all in it together that concerneth the questioned subject before he judge I take not my self bound to write more books to tell him what I wrote in the former nor do I think that I am otherwise obliged to rectifie his Error than by Prayer or Counsel endeavouring to bring him to some tenderness of Conscience fear of God and sobriety of mind But his strength lieth in frightful exclamations O was ever the like yet heard c. to palliate abominations and reconcile us to Idolatrous Popish names as Altar Priests Sacrifices c. and their baptism And yet he might have known that all these words are oft used by the ancienter sort of the holy Pastors of the Churches after the Apostles and I remember not that ever one Christian was against it or scrupled the use of them And I before shewed that they are used by the Holy-Ghost in Scripture whom I dare not accuse of Idolatrous names or reconciling us to them Whether all the
to collect the Printers Errata though I see divers and therefore must leave the discerning of them to your selves And I again admonish and intreat you that the detection of the extraordinary falshoods and blind temerarious audacity of Mr. D. be not imputed to the whole Rebaptizing party to whose Practice Gregor Magn. paralleleth Reordaining and that his crimes abate not your Christian Love and tenderness to others there being truly Godly wise and peaceable persons worthy of our Communion and willing of it of that party as well as of others Hearken not to them that would render the Party of Anabaptists odious or intolerable no more than to those Anabaptists who would perswade those of their opinion to renounce Communion with all others as unbaptized It is against this dividing spirit on all sides that I Write and Preach PART I. My private Letters to Mr. Tombes proving the Church-membership of Infants in all ages vindicated from his unsatisfactory exceptions The PREFACE § 1. THE occasion and time of these Letters is long ago published by Mr. Tombes himself in the third Part of his Anti-Paedobaptism page 353. and forward where he printeth the said Letters without my consent Had I found his Answers satisfactory I had changed my judgement and retracted that and other such writings long ago But I thought so much otherwise of them that I judged it not necessary nor worth my diverting from better employment to write an answer to them § 2. And whatever the singular judgement of that learned and excellent Professor of Theology mentioned in his Preface was or is concerning the arguments that I and many before and since have used for Infant Baptism and notwithstanding his opinion that it was introduced in the second Century c. yet so many wiser and better men than I think otherwise both of the cause and of Mr. T 's writings that I hope the modest will allow me the honour of having very good company if I should prove mistaken § 3. No sober Christian will deny but that Godly men of both opinions may be saved And then I think no such Christian that is acquainted with the History of the Church can choose but think that there are now in Heaven many thousands if not hundred thousands that were not against Infant Baptism for one that was against it And while we differ de jure yet without great ignorance of the state of the world we must needs agree that de facto the number in the Church of Christ in all Nations and Ages that have been against Infant Baptism hath been so small as that they make up but a very little part of the Church triumphant which though I take for no proof of the truth of our opinion yet I judge it a great reason to make me and others very fearful of turning rashly and without cogent proof to the other side I know the Churches have still had their blemishes but that they should all universally so err in the subject of Baptism and Christianity it self is not to be believed till it be proved § 4. Though Christ be not the Author of any of our errors he is the healer of them and he is the Effector as well as the Director of his Churches faith and holiness And yet to say that though thousands or hundred thousands are in Heaven that were for Infant Baptism for one that was against it yet Christ was against even such a constitutive part of his Church as accounted is not to be received without good proof § 5. For my part I must still say that after all that I have read for the Anabaptists and much more than such Catalogues as Mr. Danvers I do not at present remember that I have read of any one Christian that held the baptizing of Infants unlawful in many and many hundred years after Christ at least not any that denied not Original sin Though indeed the Pelagians themselves that did deny it much yet denied not Infant Baptism § 6. But of this enough heretofore I lay not my faith on the number of Consenters but in a doubtful case I think the way that almost all went that are in Heaven and took it as the very entrance of the door of life is safer caeteris paribus than that which few in Heaven did own And though on earth I have more approvers than Mr. T. I think mans approbation so poor a comfort as that I am sorry to read in his Preface and elsewhere how much he layeth upon it Alas were it not more for the good of others than our selves how inconsiderable a matter were it whether men value and honour or despise us and what we are thought or said of by each other when we are all on the borders of eternity where the honour of this world is of no signification § 7. In the answer which I must give to Mr. Tombes should I transcribe all his words and answer every impertinent passage I should needlesly weary the Reader and my self I will therefore suppose the Reader to have his Book at hand and to take his words as he hath given him them that I may not be blamed as concealing any of them And I shall answer to nothing but what seemeth to me to need an answer And for all the rest I am content that the impartial Reader judge of them as he findeth them For I write not for such as need an answer to every word that is written how frivolous soever against plain truth Mr. Tombes his first Letter SIR NOt finding yet that Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is April 3. 1655. Yours as is meet John Tombes Richard Baxters Answer Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about Infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my Conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sense of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinances or Law of God that Infants should be Church-members is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that Infants were Church-members as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods Ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Church-membership with all the consequent priviledges It is the
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
received the Scriptures the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as the Baptizing of Infants among them Answ No such thing in the Asiaticks Churches He might as well say There is now no such thing in England But perhaps hee 'l say that he meaneth in the Apostles time or soon after Of which you have tryed part of his strength But when he hath studied well Bishop Vshers Primordia who saith all that is to be said for our Antiquity he will find no proof that we had our Religion from the Apostles or any in their time § 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatick Churches and so from the Apostles as the Britains did And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism If not why will it prove the same of the Britains § 37. His second Argument is Because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture c. Answ What will not partiality say 1. You must believe him that Scripture is against Infant-Baptism And then the controversie is at an end 2. You must believe him how closely they adhered to Scripture if you can when you have read Gildas who is translated into English their neighbour one of them the only certain historian that knew them who describeth them as I have said as most flagitious heinous wicked men Though I hope they amended after Gildas dayes yet that shewed you how they held to Apostolick discipline or Scripture The book is so very small it is but equal to intreat him to read it before he use this argument again 3. You must believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are against Infant-Baptism Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzene Chrysostome Augustine the Aegyptian Monks and other such strict persons in those ages at least the Novatians and Donatists in his own judgement prized the Scripture than the Britains And doth it follow in despite of their own professions and practises that all these and the rest such were against Infant-Baptism § 38. Were not this as good an argument Luther Calvin Zuinglius Bradford Hooper all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes c. prized the Scriptures Ergo they were all against Infant-Baptism Yea even Independents and Presbyterians and all that prize and cleave to them now in England § 39. 3. He addeth Because they did so vehemently reject humane Traditions in the worship of God especially all Romish Rites and Ceremonies this as before undeniably appearing to come from Romes ordination and Imposition Answ 1. Vndeniably is a word that shameth you to every intelligent Reader that understandeth Church history Will you not confess your self that Cyprian and that Carthage Council Nazianzene Basil Augustine c. were for Infant-Baptism were all these Papists or Romans Can you prove any Roman Ordination of it before all these 2. How know you that they so vehemently rejected humane Traditions in the worship of God Did they not use the Asiatick Ceremonies Did they not precisely observe Easter and place Religion in keeping it on their own dayes Had they not Bishops and were they not Monks And do you gather by Gildas that they were such as you dream And did they not Plead Tradition for their difference from Rome 3. And were not the Scots then of their mind and as much against Traditions as they and more against vice and formality in and after Colmans and Columbanus dayes And are not the Independents more against Traditions now than the Britains were And are they therefore Anabaptists § 40. He addeth 4. Because Constantine the Great the son of Constance and the famous Helena both eminent Christians in the yeâ—r 305. was not Baptized till he was aged as before A clear proof that the Christians in Britain in those dayes did not Baptize their children Answ Some will laugh at these things but I had rather mourn for the poor peoples snares 1. It 's false that Constance was a Christian at least when Constantine was young No regardable history maketh him any better than a moderate favourer of the Christians 2. It is not proveable that Helena was one in Constantines Infancy 3. There is no probability that he was born in England as many Learned men have proved 4. It is certain he was educated and lived in other Lands 5. He was no Christian in his youth himself nor professed it till after he was Emperor The sign of a Cross appearing in the skies and his victory thereupon is said to be the means 6. He lived long at Rome and Constantinople and elsewhere before he was Baptized And was that a certain proof that none of those Countreys were for Infant-Baptism no nor for Baptism at Conversion neither because Constantine was not Baptized 7. He kept in with the Philosophers having one at his Table familiar with him to hold all parties to him 8. And many in those times thought that all sin being pardoned at Baptism they must live much strictlier after they were Baptized and were in much more danger by their sin and therefore would not be Baptized till old as Constantine when he was like to die And now where is this mans clear proof that the Britains were Anabaptists § 41. 5. Saith he Because of the Correspondency and unity that were between the French Christians after called the Waldenses and them viz. Germanus and Lupus Answ What abundance of untruths will one mans head hold 1. He would make the ignorant believe that the French Churches that sent over Germanus and Lupus were such as after were called Waldenses When yet before he citeth Perin saying that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians banished from Rome Beda Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 17 18 19 20 21. tells us briefly that the Britains being infected with Pelagianism by Agricola the son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop sent to France for help as being unable themselves to dispute the case The Bishops of France in a great Synod agreed to send Germanus Bishop of Altissiodore and Lupus Bishop of Trecasse brother to Vincentius Lerinensis Prosper in his Chronicle tells us that Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine by the instigation of Palladius a Deacon Vsher reciteth and rejecteth not Baronius his conciliation that it was done by the Pope and French Bishops Germanus and Lupus come over and work miracles by the way and here Germanus carried a box with him of the Reliques of all the Apostles and many Martyrs Beda c. 18. This he layeth to the eyes of a blind maid and cured her suddedly which confounded the Pelagians These Reliques he buryed in St. Albanes Sepulchre And instead of them took with him some of the dust where St. Albanes blood had been shed which remained red till then And after
be believed As for his talk of Disgracing the Nonconformists it 's true in two senses 1. As he and I disgrace Christianity by being so ignorant and bad 2. Or if he mean not My own Nonconformity but his even his Nonconformity to a great deal of truth and Christian duty and common honesty by concatenated falshoods I have done my part when constrained to disgrace it § 15. Sometime a friend to Calvin and then a greater to Arminius saith he Answ 1. Did he tell the Reader where by one in any words I contradict the other 2. But see the misery of a Sectarian spirit that taketh it for a contradiction to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both He would as this inferreth take it ill to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists both to Independents and Presbyterians and Episcopal too But that is to such as I the greatest duty which to him is a shameful contradiction When I think none Christians but Anabaptists I will be a friend to no other as such Men of so little a Church must have answerably little Love Censoriousness is a friend but unto few 3. But by this your friendship seemeth narrower than I thought it I thought it had extended to all the Anabaptists But they are divided into Free-willers and Free-gracers as they call them that is into Calvinists and Arminians and are you a friend but unto one part of them 4. But indeed Sir the Controversies intended by you under these names are not such as a man of my poor measure can fix his judgement in every young and promise that it shall never change nor that I can take it for a shame to grow any wiser in them than heretofore though perhaps your judgement changed not from your Childhood And I hope if what I have written may be published to make it appear that such as you that speak evil of what you understand not are the grievous enemies of the Churches of Christ as to Truth Holiness and Peace by your militant noise about Calvinism and Arminianism stirring up contentions and destroying Love by making differences seem greater than they are and laying the Churches Concord and Communion and mens salvation upon such questions as Whether the house should be built of Wood or Timber And is not this worthy of your zeal § 16. He adds Sometimes a great Defender of the Parliament and their Cause and then none more to renounce them and betraytor them for their pains Answ 1. Was there never but One Parliament and One Cause Perhaps you mean that the Parliament called 1640 and the Rump as called and the Armies Little Parliament and Oliver and the Army Council and all the rest of the Soveraigns were all One Parliament Or that to swear to the first Parliament or fight for them and to shut out and imprison them and to dissolve them as Usurpers and to set up one chosen by who knows whom and to set up Oliver and his Son and to pull him down again and to set up the Rump again and to pull them down and set up a Council of State c. were all one Cause And that one day it was Treason not to be for one Soveraign and another day not to be against that and for another Your Army did not betraytor them when they forced out one part as Traytors first and thrust out the major part after imprisoning and reproaching many worthy wise and religious men and when they pulled down all the rest at last Had you or I more hand in these matters Whether you know your self I know not but I am sure you know not me nor what you talk of § 17. It followeth Sometimes a great Opposer of Tradition and anon a great defender thereof Answ 1. If you take Tradition equivocally you calumniate but by equivocation but if thereof mean the same Tradition your falshood hath not the cloak of an equivocation Prove what you say by any words of mine It is between twenty and thirty years I think since I largely opened my judgement of Tradition in the Preface to the second edition of my book called the Saints Rest which I never changed since If you will deny that your Father delivered you the Bible or any other or that the Church hath used both Bible and Baptism from the Apostles dayes till now Let the reproach of such Tradition be your glory if you will It shall be none of mine But do you write a book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christs time to ours and when you have done renounce and scorn it See Reader how he valueth his own work § 18. He addeth Sometimes a violent impugner of Popery and yet at last who hath spoken more in favour of it Answ Here again if by Popery and it you mean the same thing You hold on the same course Prove it true and take the honour of once writing a true accusation I have not hid my judgement about Popery having written about seven or eight books against it in above twenty years time by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgement If you cannot refuse not to blush But I was and am a defender of that which is Popery and Antichristianity with you the Church-membership Covenant-interest and Baptism of Infants and it 's like many more parcels of the Treasures of Christ which you zealously rob him off and give to Antichrist As too many Sectaries do the greatest part I doubt more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom or Church universal And as Divines use to prove that carnal minds are enemies and haters of God because they confess honour and worship him both in Name and in respect of many of his Attributes and relations and works yet in respect of others they are averse to him so I would be a monitor to you and such like Sectaries to take heed of going much further lest before you know what you do while you honour Christs name and cry up some of his Grace and doctrines you should really hate oppugn and blaspheme him and take Christ himself for Antichrist and his Churches and servants for Antichristian If you will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church I think it will prove to be Christ himself § 19. Reader How big a volume wouldst thou have me write in answering such stuff as this Tears are fitter than Ink for such fearless rash continued visible falshoods to be deliberately published to the world as truths by one that calleth himself a man and a Christian and seemeth zealous to new Christen most of the Christian world Unless I should tire my self and thee I must stop and cease this noysome work Only one charge more which runs through much of his book I will answer because it concerneth the cause it self § 20. He oft tells you that when I have called my book Plain Scripture proof I yet there and after contradict my self by saying that
eight Copies in England which omit twenty three of the Epistles which are commonly received and it 's most credible by other Copies are Genuine And yet none of these leave out the Epistle to Fidus about Infant-baptism § 57. And whereas he saith that Cyprian urged not Tradition I answer there was no cause For the question was not whether Infants should be baptized much less whether they were to be dedicated in Covenant to God and to be Church-members but only whether they should be baptized before the eighth day For Fidus thought that at one two or three days old they were so unclean as made them unmeet for baptism and that the eighth day was the time of their purification which Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops confuted and shewed that Gods mercy accepteth them from the beginning without respect to legal days And what use was here for a plea from Tradition for Infant-baptism which was not denied § 58. And it seems to me to be a great evidence that the Tradition of the Church was then for it in that this Council of Bishops before true Popery was born so unanimously determine of the day or time and not one of them no nor Fidus himself that raised the doubt did so much as raise any scruple or question about Infant-baptism it self at all which sure they would have done on such an occasion if any or many Christians or any Churches had denied it No wonder therefore if Augustin so long after say that no Christian taketh it to be in vain § 59. Yet again I will confess that the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen shew that it was long before all were agreed of the very time or of the necessity of baptizing Infants before any use of Reason in case they were like to live to maturity For I am perswaded that the Apostles and first Ministers were so taken up with the Converting of Infidels Jews and Gentiles that the case of Infant-baptism was so postponed and taken but as an Appendix to the baptism of the adult as that it was thought less needful to give it a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church The Churches made no question of Infants Church-membership as being undoubtedly in the promise and devoted to God by all faithful parents And they took not baptism at first for their first Covenanting or Consent but for the solemnization of it and so not for Infants first real state of relation to Christ and right to life which was before it as it was to believers before baptism but for the solemn investiture in those rights And so Greg. Nazian Or. 40. giveth this brief definition of baptism that it is nothing else but a Covenant made with God for a new and purer kind of life And hereupon many who thought Infants Church-members visible and safe upon their Parents Covenant consent thought that the time of solemnization was so far left to prudence as that as the Israelites did Circumcision in the wilderness it might be delayed a few years by such Parents as desired it till children could somewhat answer for themselves § 60. Yet after my review of this controversie upon their urgencie I find no proof brought by any of these men that ever one Church in the world was without Infant-members that had Infants nor one person in the Church against Infant Church-membership and baptism from Christs days till the Waldenses about eleven hundred or a thousand years except that Tertullian who took them for Innocent and therefore Church-members did in some case advise the delay I say I find not one Christian or Heretick against it unless you will impute it to them that were against all baptism which Infidels also are And though I verily believe that the Waldenses were not against Infant-baptism nor is there full proof that any in their time were yet because I am loth to judge the Papists utterly impudent lyars I think it most probable that in the Waldenses days and Country there was a sort of odious Hereticks that denied Infant-baptism and the Resurrection and held community of Wives and other abominations reported all together by their opposers in those times CHAP. V. Mr. Danvers's great Calumnie of my self refuted § 1. MR. D. pag. 134. Ed. 1. saith thus Yet is not Mr. Baxter ashamed to fix such an abhominable slander upon the Baptists of this our age of baptizing naked which it seems was so long the real practice of the paedobaptists and about which he spends three whole pages to aggravate the heynousness of their custom which he is pleased to father on them And though I am perswaded he cannot but be convinced that the thing is most notoriously false and brought forth by him rather out of prejudice not to say malice rather than any proof or good testimony he ever received thereof yet have I never heard that he hath done himself his injured neighbours and the abused world that right as to own his great weakness and sinful shortness therein in any of the many Editions of that piece which I humbly conceive as well deserved a recantation as some other things he has judged worthy thereof § 2. Answ To live and die impenitently in so unprofitable a sin and unpleasing to any but diabolical natures as is the belying of others is a very dreadful kind of folly I would heartily wish that Mr. Danvers and I might meet and help to bring each other to repentance by a willing impartial examination of each of our guiltinesses herein § 3. I never look to speak to them thus more nor long to any man on earth and in this station and with these thoughts I must profess not thinking it lawful to belie my self that in the year 1647. or 1648. or both when Anabaptistry began suddenly to be obtruded with more successful fervency than before I lived near Mr. Tombes in a Country where some were and within the hearing of their practice in other parts of the land And that in that beginning the common frame of Ministers and people was that in divers places some baptized naked and some did not And that I never to my best remembrance heard man or woman contradict that report till this man did it in this writing And that no Anabaptist contradicted it to me that I then or since conversed with And that thereupon in 1659. I wrote against both sorts those that baptized naked and those that did not And after all this when Mr. Tombes answered my book and those very passages he never denied the truth of the thing though he did not so baptize himself unless he have any where else since said any thing of it which I never saw or heard of And I appeal to impartial reason whether he would not then at the time have denied it had it been deniable And whether this man now twenty five or six years after be fitter to be believed in a matter of fact than common consent at the present time And
whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars rather than this one man that hath written us such a book and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness no nor if he had written at that time For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge § 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists or of most or of any in any other age or that I have since said that any continue the same practice he would but deceive men for it is nothing so § 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time I think it is to be taken so much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth require § 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator Adulterer Murderer or Thief as I remember in England And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity and unrighteous justice § 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster or in the time of David George Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely And is he a lyar that saith it because they do not so now I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked as a Prophet before our eyes through the high street and they said they did so in many other places I know not the mans name now nor any of the multitude of Spectators if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him in vain to live But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for I must travel to the place before I could produce them § 8. Yea I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize or baptize the aged But fame saith they do so and none deny it If it prove false I shall be glad and will joyn in vindicating them And so I say of the present case And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting and rash ungrounded defamations of others CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words § 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them and alledging my words as justifying his cause I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers about a particular vindication of my words so triflingly and vainly used by them § 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them or the force of the arguments or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself The first I may well presume it is not If it were the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is If it be the second why do they use any arguments of mine when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author But seeing I must believe that the last is their business I can have leisure to say little more than this to them that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do and can reconcile my words when they cannot If this satisfie not them it satisfieth me § 3. In summ the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils 1. That most of them speak to the Question What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed Or the profession of a saving faith as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent And I prove that it is no other sort of faith but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts as the Condition of his Covenant And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith as to object or act but of this saving faith which the Church must accept to the admission of members A lower profession will serve for none 2. But I still maintain and I think fully proved that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent and doth Covenant with God as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract as in a lease for his life or the like Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child of an Owner a Governour and a Lover God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights as if he had done it himself and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents which in proper speech is They did it for him at Gods Command § 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings with those before and after that explain them or else if he will do as this man doth abuse
the controversie is difficult and by saying that in the ancient Churches men were left at liberty to Baptize their children when they would And 1. His very words prove that this is no contradiction For these very words I will make plain to a boy of ten years old and yet the world must know in print that he is not able to understand them and that this is worthy the consideration of his proselytes 2. My meaning I opened long ago which he concealeth The Proofs of Infants Church-membership are Plain the proof therefore of their right to Baptism is plain though not in the same degree but there are objections of difficulty which may be brought against it which every weak Christian nor Minister neither cannot answer And the hardest is that which is little taken notice of by themselves but I impartially opened in my Christian Directory And is it a contradiction to say that a doctrine that hath Plain Proof may be assaulted by difficult obâ—ections And yet such as a sober Christian should not be changed by unless on the same reasons he will forsake all Christianity and his everlasting hopes For I take the doctrine of the Souls Immortality to be such as may be Plainly proved But truly I take it to be five degrees above the ability of this Writer to answer solidly all that can be said against it I take it to be Plainly provable that the Scripture is certainly true And yet I take it to be quite above this confident mans ability well to solve all the difficulties objected were it but those poor ones of Benedictus Spinosa in his late pestilent Tractatus Theologico-Politicus I think I have plain proof that God is not the Author of sin and man is not moved in it and all his acts as an engine by unavoidable necessitation But I despair that ten years study more should inable this Writer clearly to solve the objections of Hobbes or Camero about it In a word though we have Plain proof that Christ is the Son of God I should be loth that the faith of this Nation should lie upon the success of a dispute about it between a crafty Infidel and this self-conceited man § 21. And why should my impartiality in acknowledging the Churches liberty as to the time of Baptism at first be so unkindly received I meant not nor said that Christ had left it Indifferent and to their Liberty but that they left one another at liberty herein Because 1. The first and great work was in setling the Churches by converting Jews and Gentiles to the faith And the Adult who were the active members were they that the Apostles had most to do with and therefore whose case is expresly spoken of 2. Because it was a known thing that the Infants of Church-members had ever been Church-members and were in possession of that Relation when Christ and his Apostles set up Baptism 3. And it was a granted case that all Sanctified persons devoted themselves and all that they had to God and every thing according to its capacity And therefore their Infants according to their capacity which God himself had before expounded 4. And it was never the meaning of Christ to lay so much on the outward washing as many Papists and Anabaptists do But as the uncircumcised Infants in the Wilderness were nevertheless Church-members and saved so when Infants were in the Covenant of God by the Parents true and known consent their damnation was not to be feared upon their dying unbaptized by surprize 5. But yet obedience to God being necessary many Parents hastned their childrens Baptism at two or three dayes old Others staid till the eighth day others longer and multitudes had children that were in several degrees entred on the use of reason when the Parents were converted and it remained doubtful whether they were as to the Covenant at their Parents choice or their own And to this day there want not those that think that Baptism was not instituted to be the ordinary initiating Sacrament of the children of Church-members but only of Proselytes And that Christians Infants took their places in the Church of course but Proselytes from without only were to be Baptized Though this be an error it is probable that there were some then as well as now of that opinion But nothing more occasioned as far as I can find the delay of Baptism than the fear of the danger of sinning after it especially of apostasie All held that all sin past was pardoned in Baptism And Heb. 6. and 10. and other texts and the common doctrine of the Church made them think it a very perillous thing to sin wilfully after illumination and the acknowledgement of the truth And therefore abundance delayed their own Baptism till age and many were backward to Baptize their children lest childish folly and youthful lusts and worldly temptations should draw them to trample upon the blood of the Covenant And on such accounts all were not Baptized at one age And divers that were Baptized at age upon their own conversion from Heathenism were not suddenly so knowing as to be acquainted with all the cases about their childrens rights but must have a considerable time to learn For it was be it spoken without offence to stricter men a General and Narrow sort of Knowledge which the Apostles and the Primitive Churches required in the adult as necessary to Baptism yea when they had at last kept them long under Catechizing For even in Augustines time though all used the same words of Baptism so few had a clear understanding of the very Baptismal form or words that writing ubi supra de bapt contr Donat. he saith that as to the Meaning of those words not only the Hereticks sed ipsi carnales parvuli Ecclesiae si possent singuli diligenter interrogari tot diversitates opinionum fortassis quot homines numerarentur Animalis enim homo non percipit c. Annon tamen ideo non integrum sacramentum accipiunt § 22. There remaineth a Catalogue of my heynous errors which he hath put in the preface to his first edition and in the end of the second and which he and such as he have taught many honest weak people in London both Anabaptists and Independents to talk frightfully and odiously of from one another behind my back What should I say to him and them Shall I answer them that never speak or write to me Shall I take this mans accusation for a confutation or conviction Is so deadly an enemy of Antichrist conceited of a self-infallibility or that I must take my faith or trust from Mr. Danvers though not from the Church Pope or General Council If not what did the man think that a recitation should do with me Did not I know what I had written till he told me § 23. But it is others that he tells it to Those others will read my own words or they will not If they will I will not be so