had an Husband and not fewer Gal. 4.25 26 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise even that promise which extended to the Infants with the Parents Gal. 4.28 Mr. T. I conceived a Promise not in congruous sense repealable For although a promise be a Law to the Promiser yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed 'T is true the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth but that cannot be repealed that which is done cannot be infectum not done Reply I perceive we must dispute our first principles as well as our Baptism Reader Gods promise in question is not a particular promise to some one person only but his Recorded Instrument of Donation or stablished written or continued word which is the sign of his will It is the same thing which is called the Premiant or Donative part of his Law in one respect and his Testament in another and his Donation or Gift in another and his Covenant as Conditional in another and his Promise in another As He that believeth shall be saved is the Rewarding or Giving part of a Law and it is a Testament a Covenant a Promise a Gift all these Mr. T. cannot see how this promise can be repealed what not an universal promising Law or Covenant or Instrument The question is not whether it ever was repealed but whether it be repealeable in congruous sense Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth such and such hurtful creatures a Fox c. or that killeth an enemy in war shall have such a reward and repeale this Law or Promise when he seeth cause I think the first Covenant ceased by mans sin without repeal But I cannot say that no promise to the Israelites was repealed upon their sin The non-performance of the condition depriveth the party of the benefit while it is unrepealed but may not God thereupon repeal the Law or Covenant and null the very offer to posterity Is it not so as to the Jews policie and peculiarity What pains is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove the change of the Covenant as faulty in comparison of that which had better promises But if you will call it a meer cessation all is one as to our question in hand SECT XCVIII R. B. BEfore I end I shall be bold to put two or three Questions to you out of your last Letter Quest 1. Whether the circumcised servants of Israel sold away to another nation and so separated from the Civil state of Israel did eo nomine cease to be Church-members though they forsook not God And so of the Infants if they were sold in Infancy If you affirm it then prove it If you deny it then Infants might be Church-members that were not of the Common-wealth Mr. T. None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Common-wealth Reply But my Question was when without forsaking God they are forcibly separated from the Jewish policy and subjected to others are they not members of the Church-universal still though not of the Jews SECT XCIX R.B. Quest 2. IF as you say it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off or not who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem which came to be a Patriarchal seat Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jews Church-members in Infancy If no then it was somewhat else than unbelief that broke them off Mr. T. They were broken off from the Jewish Church not by unbelief but by faith in Christ Reply This is too short an answer to so great an evidence against you The Infants of the Christian Jews were the day before their Conversion members of the Jewish Church and of Gods universal Church of which the Jews were but a part For as he that is a member of the City is a member of the Kingdom and a part of a part is a part of the whole so every member of the Jews Church was a member of Gods universal Church Now 1. The very Jews policy totally ceased not till the destruction of Jerusalem at least 2. But if it had I ask was it no mercy to be a member both of the Jews Church and the universal If not the Jews lost nothing by being broken off If yea how did the Christians Children forfeit it Was it better to be of no visible Church than of the universal The Jews were broken off by unbelief you say Christians Infants were put out of that and the whole visible Church by faith or without unbelief SECT C. R. B. Quest 3. WHether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews but to bring in Gentiles breaking down the partition-wall and making of two one Church would have such a Linsey Woolsey Church of party colours or several forms so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have Infant members and the Church at Rome should have nonel Jews Infants should be members and not Genties Mr. T. so answereth as before and needeth no other Reply SECT CI. R. B. Quest 4. IF unbelief brake them off will not repentance graff them in And so should every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-members Mr. T. Not their Infants Reply Then it would be but a part of the people that would be graffed in SECT CII R. B. Quest 5. WAs not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual and gathered in a spiritual way Mr. T. The invisible was the visible Jewish Nation was not Reply Not in comparison of the times of maturity but the visible Jewish frame had the Father of spirits for Soveraign and commanded spiritual duties upon promises of spiritual blessings even life Eternal SECT CIII R. B. Quest 6. HOw prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame that Infants were members Or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age Mr. T. It was a more imperfect state in that and other regards Reply I called for some proof that the Infant-membership was any part of the Church-imperfection If it be not a blemish why must it be done away what was the Church the worse for Infants Rights SECT CIV R. B. Quest 7. IN what regard is the new frame bettered by casting out Infants which were in the old Mr. T. The Church is more spiriâ—ual Reply What doth Infants Relation detract from its spirituality The adult have souls and bodies and so have Infants The adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves as they make for their Infants The adult blemish the Church with more carnal sins than Infants do The Kingdom would be never the more spiritual nor excellent if all Infants were disfranchised Nature teacheth all Kingdoms on earth to take them for members though but Infant-members SECT CV R. B. Quest 8. WHether any Jew at age was a member of the
act in baptism than one God by his Ministers expresseth his Covenant-Gift and Consent and delivereth it sealed to the Receiver by the instituted investing symbol The party receiving expresseth his consent and this the Parent hath power and trust to do for the child as you may take a Lease for your Child Cannot the Parent do this and so be a Cause of Reception without being a Minister SECT LXXIX to LXXXVI R. B. THe promise to the whole people of Israel Infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdom of Priests and a holy Nation Exod 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sense yet no more truth than when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. It is expresly a promise de futuro to a Nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithful who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmaon the blessing of Church-membership to Infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Church-membership It is undeniable therefore that such Church-membership is here granted by Promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it is to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant vers 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now In Deut. 17.1 2. The Infants with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God And Deut. 26.14 18. the Covenant is expressed Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. And that thou maist be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that Infants are included So Deut. 28.4 9. Where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandments they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as he had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and Promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant on Promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means And Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant only of the successive Israelites and then it is not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It is a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off vers 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Church-membership contained in Gods being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Deut. 30.19 There is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josiâ—h caused the people to enter 2 Kings 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Mr. T. For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the Parents believing are Deut. 29. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and Parents faith are not the sole efficient so that though the Covenant give a Right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some other transeunt fact Reply The rest let the Reader make his best of We are it seems by this time in a fair way of agreement and have almost done our work It seemeth by this time he could find in his heart to grant that the Covenant is an efficient cause though not the sole efficient well we will not stick on that Gods love and revelation and Christs merits shall be antecedent chief efficients And he seemeth now instead of saying still that It is only by the Physical transeunt fact to be content if we will say it is not till or without that fact that is that men are not members of the Church till they are men We will not be so sowre as to deny him that much And indeed is this all at the upshot But I will not grant him the logical notion too easily though we will not quarrel about it I think a cause materially may long exist before the effect though it be not formaliter causa till it effect And I think that Gods conditional Covenant or Promise is but causa virtualis aptitudinalis till it effect and yet may be the sole proximate efficient of our Right afterward I think the childs being born did not effect his Right to Church Relation nor doth our Faith now nor the Parents faith or consent but only as a condition make men capable Recipients And I think the effect may begin de novo without any change in the efficient upon a change in the Recipient And that the Sun unchanged is the proximate efficient of motion light and heat to the next existent wight that received not his influx before it did exist And the Covenant or
When I heard Anabaptistry obtruded on the religious people as a great and needful part of their integrity 2. And when they that abhorred to hear of old scandals were busily making more and greater 3. When I saw what was done against the Parliament by them that professed to be their servants and that the Anabaptists and their Associates were the forwardest in the work 4. And what was done against the King when they had thrust out the Parliament 5. And what was done in the wars against Scotland 6. And what orders past for sequestring all such as my self that were not for their Engagement or Keeping their days of fasting and thanksgiving in causes of blood 7. And when I saw these executed on many excellent men that were Masters of Colledges in the Universities and useful Ministers in the Country 8. And when I saw what that called the Little Parliament was and did and how it was put to the Vote whether all the Parish Ministers of England should be put out at once and carried against them but by a few And that the Anabaptists were of the forwardest in all this work 9. And after when I saw how many of them turned Ranters and read my self some of their Letters full of horrid Oathes and Blasphemies All these things made me think that they were not friends to the Churches welfare and this was not the way of holiness or peace § 3. All this while I desired to have lived by them in peace and quietness but I could not obtain it Mr. Tombes thought that I stood in the way of his successes even when I medled not with them And therefore I must be either converted to them or conquered that the triumph might promote their ends And when that quarrel was over I was glad and purposed to meddle with them no more § 4. One of the greatest things that offended me was that even in the Parishes where there were the ablest faithful laborious Ministers they laboured to gather separated Churches upon the account of their opinion And when they had gathered them they were militant Churches Presently that Town was in a war and the meetings employed for the extolling of their opinions and vilifying the Ministers and Churches that were against them and making them odious or contemptible to their followers which could not be the work of God § 5. I dare challenge any man to make it good that ever I fought to persecute any Anabaptists or stirred up others to persecute them for their judgements I know not that ever I did any of them any harm except by not being of their minds or contradicting them But though my sufferings by them were nothing that honour being assumed by another party yet they have not carried it so to me But have convinced me that were they uppermost they would then have had too little tenderness for those that hindred their successes Even some of Mr. Tombes his flock my neighbours and familiar friends I think sought my life or ruine when I meddled not with them When Sir George Booth had done what was done in Cheshire I wrote a Letter to Major Beak at Coventry and the Messenger telling them at Bewdley that he had a Letter from me some of them made themselves Souldiers and in arms way-laid the messenger assaulted him and took his Letters and though they found not what I suppose they expected yet finding in it but a great mans name who then much ruled publick affairs they sent it up to the Council to him who summoned Major Beak to London to answer it who had never seen it and knew nothing of it And though he so scaped I was loudly threatned but General Monks approach out of Scotland stayed the execution of their displeasure Thus did my familiar Friends unprovoked some of them yet alive § 6. Indeed my judgement was and is that the point of Infant Baptism hath its considerable difficulties which may occasion wise and good men to doubt or to be mistaken in it And many of the Roman party have taken it to be proveable only by the tradition and judgement of the Church And Mr. Tombes hath publickly intimated as if one of our most Learned and Entire publick Professors of Theologie in one of our Universities had declared himself of the same mind viz. that it is not to be proved by Scripture Mr. Danvers hath also made advantage of this testimony Though of late Scripture certain proof is found in the new Rubrick of the Liturgie for a great deal more I am not of that mind that it is not proveable by Scripture I think I have proved it but not by evidence so clear as every good man can perceive § 7. Therefore I never took the point of it to have such weight as that all that differed from me in it must be denied either Love Liberty or Communion If I know my own heart I do as heartily love a sober godly man that is against Infant baptism as I do such men that differ from me in other such Controversies and much better than one of my own judgement who hath less piety and sobriety And I make no doubt but there are among us very many such even sober and religious men as there be among other parties § 8. Nor do I think that there is so much malignity in the bare opinion which denieth Infant Baptism as that all the Anabaptists miscarriages should arise from the nature of that opinion But I am past doubt that they arise from the diseased minds of many that hold it When injudicious persons lay hold upon an opinion which is not common their singularity kindleth a proud selfish zeal and they take that opinion as more peculiarly their own than the common Articles which all Christians hold And therefore they grow fond of it and are puft up thereby with a conceit of their extraordinary knowledge And then they seem to themselves more religious than others and greater friends to the truth And so Pride and Ignorance engage them in singularity and separation And thus they would do were it any other opinion which they thought as highly of as this So that it is not an Anabaptist as such but the proud Church-divider or Separatist that I am most offended at § 9. I know that in the Ancient Churches men were left at liberty both when they would be baptized themselves and when their Children should be baptized And though Infant-baptism was without any known original since the Apostles yet it was not a forced thing § 10. And were it in my power it should be so still I would not deny Christian Love nor Church-Communion nor publick encouragements to any pious peaceable man for being an Anabaptist If he would not separate for it from the Churches if he would live peaceably with me I would live peaceably with him and should be loth to be behind with him in love and peace § 11. It is not I say Anabaptistry Independency nor any such opinion which
may see in Fulgentius's life But what is all this to Infant-baptism § 51. Next he tells us that in the ninth Century Hincmarus Laudunens was against Infant-baptism and reciteth many words of Hincmarus Rhenensis to him Answ The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl To. 2. containing 55. Chapters And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this about a Village in the other Pariâ—h whom it should pay Tythes to habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes sine baptismate quot homines sine Communione inde obierunt quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles ne postea tibi improperarem at si alia mala de me scires illa etiam de me diceres Reader is here a syllable against Infant-baptism Who was the accuser here What is in the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused And are we therefore against Infant-baptism Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it § 52. Reader the truth is I am so weary of this work that I cannot perswade my self to follow it any further it is so sad and loathsom a business that is set before us fitter to be wept over than answered at large I shall yet take notice of what he saith of the Waldenses and to that further say 1. That I have elsewhere vindicated them already from this slander 2. That so do many of their bitter adversaries in laying no such thing to their charge Among whom to what is said elsewhere I add but the Testimony of Nauclerus a Popish bitter enemy to them who Vol. 2. part 2. pag. 265. reciteth their Doctrine as being agreeable with the body of Doctrine held in the Reformed Churches never mentioning any denial of Infant-baptism but only that they affirmed Water to be sufficient without Oyl AND now as to our Testimonies for the Common practice of Infant-baptism from the daies of the Apostles I will not abuse the Reader by reciting again the testimonies long ago recited Let him but consider what I have there said out of Justin Irenaeus Origen Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Augustin and others and I leave the matter to his Judgement § 53. And further where they feign Nazianzen to be indifferent I will add but these words out of his Orat. 40. vol. 1. p. 648. Ed. Morel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou an Infant Let not naughtiness surprize him first Let him be sanctified from his Infancy Let him be consecrated to the spirit from his Infancie But dost thou fear the seal because of the weakness of his nature How weak a minded mother art thou and of how little faith But Hannah c. Thou hast no need of Amulets and Inchantments with which the wicked one creepeth into the minds of vain men stealing to himself the veneration due to God Give him the Trinity that great and excellent Amulet That all this is spoken of Baptism is past all doubt Yet Nazianzen in some cases admitteth of delay till three years old But took baptism to be so necessary for Infants that he thought that if any though by surprize and not the Parents contempt should die unbaptized they should not goe to Heaven or be Rewarded though he thought they should not go to Hell or be punished Ib. Orat. 40. His opinion therefore for delay three years in case of safety consisted with too much apprehension of its necessity even to Infants § 54. When I read his language of holy Cyprian I confess the apparition of so frightful a spirit doth affright me from his doctrine First The man with greater audaciousness than the Papists use the Fathers doth first attempt against all consent of antiquity and without any proof to question the truth of the sentence of Cyprian and the Carthage Council to Fidus. Secondly And what could he say more to betray the Protâ—stant Cause to the Papists than as after Either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined or that he himself was a notable Factor for Antichrist and that in him the mystery of iniquity did very strongly work The man it seems had never read Jeremy Stephens his Edition of Cyprian de unit Eccl. and how those few words of Peter and the Church of Rome were added by Corrupters though he is willing to believe in the general that his writings were corrupted But we have certain Copies at least of so much of them as confute his Cause I remember our great Antiquary Bishop Vsher told me that it was Tertullian and Cyprian that he took for the Chief Records of Church Antiquities next a few small things which give little information of matters of fact And some of the things that this man so starteth at Cyprian held and as Epiphanius saith All the Christian Churches And must he then be a Factor for Antichrist Who then is this Man a Factor for Mark Reader whether it be any wonder if I be abhominable and Antichristian to him when Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops with him must come under hypothetically that suspicion 1. That Cyprian who was so holy and wise a man 2. That lived before Antichrist was born 3. That died a Martyr for Christ 4. Who is so great a part of the pure antiquity that if you cast him away what will the rest be for a great time 5. That Cyprian who is called by some the first Anabaptist because he was for rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks 6. That Cyprian who so stifly opposed the Bishop of Rome though himself was in the error 7. That Cyprian whom the Donatists boasted of as their predecessor in rebaptizing and Austin was put to answer though with his honour 8. That Cyprian who lived before any Christian Emperor when strict discipline upheld religion without and against the Magistrates sword and who wrote so many of his Epistles only for the rigor of Church-discipline O whâ—t pleasure is this to Papists If we be but such Antichristians say they as holy Cyprian and the primitive Churches were we will prefer it before the Anabaptists Christianity § 55. And if Cyprian was Antichristian where then was the Church of Christ It will be hard to answer Papist or Seeker about its visibility or Infidel about its reality And what a King do they make Christ that make him to have no Kingdom that they can prove to have been existent § 56. We will easily grant him that Cyprian de unit Eccl. is abused by the Papists and the very words thrust in are proved so to be by many Copies that have them not Yea Jeremy Stephens saith that there are