world 1. Carnal proud and worldly hypocrites who are enemies to that which is against their pride and worldly interest These contend malignantly against Godliness 2. Ignorant idle fleshly droans that eat and drink and mind the world but meddle not much with controversies 3. Professors of Religious zeal who espouse some singular dividing way and turn all their studies to make good their mistakes who have laudable abilities perverted by prejudice error and interest 4. Honest Preachers that serve God in practical preaching but being but half studied in some controversies are yet as forward and busie in disputing censuring and reproving dissenters as if they knew as much as the cause requireth I would all these would meddle with no controversies but what great necessity in plain and certain cases calls them to 5. We have many humble truly Godly men who as they are conscious that they are not well studied for controversie so they meddle not with it but lay out themselves in preaching the truths that we all agree in and do God and his Church much service in quietness and peace These are the men that the Church is most beholden to 6. Some are judicious and very fit for controversie but too cold in the practical part of Religion 7. Some excellent holy men like Augustine have so digested the matter as to be able to defend the truth against all adversaries and live accordingly Only these two last sorts should be imployed in such disputes SECT II. Of the weight and nature of the present controversie § 1. I think it a matter in this distracted age which you may be much concerned in to know what weight is to be laid on the controversie about Infant Baptism that you may neither come too short nor go too far For my part when the Christian Parent or owner to whom God in Nature and Scripture hath intrusted the Infant doth heartily dedicate him to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consent that he stand related according to the Baptismal Covenant I am none of those that believe that God who is a Spirit layeth so much upon the application of the water as to damn any such Infant meerly for the want of it And though I cannot subscribe to as much more as some would have me who think so much better of their own understandings than ever any evidence perswaded me to do as to judge themselves worthy to be Creed-makers for all others yea and to be called The Church it self yet I approve of the seventeenth Canon of the Synod of Dort Art 1. that faithful Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children dying in Infancy § 2. And I hope all the pious Anabaptists themselves do virtually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant relation while they vehemently plead against it For surely they have so much natural affection that if they did think that God would be a God in special Covenant with their children and pardon their Original sin and give them right to future life upon the Parents dedication and consent they would undoubtedly accept the gift and be thankful And I believe most of them would say I would do all that God intrusteth and enableth me to do that my child may be a child of God and I would give him up to God and accept any mercy for him as far as God doth authorize me so to do § 3. And if Parents and Owners will not consent that their children be in Covenant with God and be baptized I am not yet satisfied what remedy we have nor who can do it for them to as good effect For if any one may do it as some plead then all Heathens children may be so used and saved And he that perswadeth me that there is extant such a Covenant or promise of God that he will save every Heathens child that is but by any one brought to baptism 1. He must shew me that text where this promise is 2. And when he hath done he will leave me perswaded that God will save all Heathens Infants whether baptized or not 1. Because I and ten thousand more Christians would sit in our closets and offer to God all the Infants in the world that is consent that he be their reconciled God and they his children and in Covenant with him what good man would not desire their salvation 2. And I should not easily believe that God will damn them all meerly for want of a strangers consent to save them were that wanting 3. Much less that when we do consent a thousand or ten thousand miles off that all the children e. g. in China or Siana shall be baptized and saved that this shall not hinder their damnation meerly because the Infants and we are so distant that we cannot in sight and presence offer them to God surely if my consent that a Turks child be baptized and saved will do it if he were with me it may do it a mile off and if so then ten thousand miles off 4. And if I be impowred to consent I shall never believe that the bare want of the water will damn him who hath all things else that God hath made necessary to his salvation as I said before I think they give too much to Baptism who say that God will either save any one by it who wanteth other things necessary to salvation or that he will damn any for want of it that is of the washing of the body who want nothing else which is necessary to salvation And I doubt they that say otherwise will prove dishonourers of the Christian Religion by feigning it to be too like to the Heathenish superstition laying mens salvation on a ceremony as of absolute necessity And I am confident it is contrary to Christs redoubled lesson Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice And no men shall unteach me this great and comfortable lesson which Christ hath so industriously taught me and which hath been long written so deeply on my heart as hath made all unmerciful persecutions and separations and alienations very displeasing to me § 4. I have proved afterwards that even Augustine himself doth as on great deliberation assert that where the Ministry of baptism is not despised Heart conversion without it sufficeth to salvation in the adult And no scripture or reason doth make it absolutely necessary to Infants if not to the adult § 5. And if Heathens Infants are not damned meerly for want of outward baptism nor yet for want of the consent of others either because that other mens consent who are strangers to them is not necessary to their salvation or if it be necessary they have it at a distance then it will follow that all the Infants of Heathens are in a state of salvation unless somewhat else be yet proved necessary to it And if they are all saved then so are all Christians Infants also or else they are more
Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law but through the righteousness of faith Now it is certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend Infants The consequence of the major then is evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to be expounded by the same expressed more fully And it is acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Mr. T. That the fundamental Promise of Grace Gen. 3.15 doth include Infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it Reply If we be really of one mind it is pitty we should make men think we differ Mark this concession Reader The fundamental promise of Grace doth include Infants The Grace of that promise is our Vnion Relative to Christ and his Church and the benefits internal and external belonging to Christs members Do you believe that our union with the visible Church as such and participation in its priviledges is none of that Grace Mr. T. This I deny that it includes all Infants or all Infants of Believers and that any Infant is made a visible Church-member by that promise as the next cause or sole efficient Reply It will come to something anon 1. That all Infants are made Church-members by it did any of us ever affirm Though if the Parents dissent had not hindred and their consent had made them and their Infants capable Recipients it would have been all 2. The Covenant or Law of Grace giveth visible Church-membership conditionally to all that hear it Deny this and you know not what you do I first ask you Doth not the Law of Grace or Promise give both mystical and visible Church-membership to all that hear it that are at age and have the use of Reason I speak not of membership in a particular Church which some may want opportunity to enjoy but in the universal Deny this and you deny Christs Gospel Doth he not say He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved whoever believeth shall not perish whoever will let him take the water of life freely He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out Go into the high-ways and hedges and compel them to come in c. If Gods Law Covenant Promise or Donation call it which you had rather do contain a conditional Gift of Christ pardon and life to all the adult which it beseemeth none but an Infidel to deny ask thy Conscience Reader whether this blessed Covenant give no such conditional right to any Infant in the world Are they all excluded And why Are they worse than their Parents If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth to Parents it must be on a condition to be performed by the Parents or such as are so far entrusted Mr. T.'s talking of the next cause and the sole efficient seem to me the words of a man that knew not what to say but was resolved that he would not yield Sir do you grant that the promise maketh Infants visible Church-members as any cause next or remote sole or cooperating If not why cheat you your simple followers by this talk If you do we are agreed and why contend you If Logical notions are our difference say so I think as it is a Beneficial Relation the Parents consent and dedication and the childs being Theirs are the dispositio materiae called by some causae Receptivae vel dispositivae and that Gods donation is the sole efficient in which his donative word call it what you will is the Instrument This is plain Logick But you that profess that your Church-membership is it self no benefit and so owe God no thanks for it and yet make such a stir about it cannot indeed hold that Gods love or mercy or Christs merits or the Covenant or Promise are givers of it to young or old For they give nothing but benefits Be not angry to have your absurdities opened but before you die be sober and reform them He addeth I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical Grace though mixt and that it did include Infants and that they were Church-members to wit of the invisible Church of the Elect And that Abrahams Infants in his house were visible Church-members but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by the transeunt fact and if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply About 23 and 24 years of age I was my self in doubt of Infant Baptism But had I read such a Writer as this against it I think he would have easily resolved me for it 1. The Covenant to Abrahams family was a Covenant of Evangelical Grace he saith And surely so was that to Adam and Noe before And it included Infants but only as Elect in the Church invisible But the conditional Promise or Covenant is confest to include the Non-elect at age And what None of them in Infancy Reader How can this be called a Covenant for God only to say I will save all such Infants as I elect and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the world on any condition nor give a title to any person that can be known by themselves or others They confound the Decree of God with his Covenant If God had made no other Law Promise or Covenant with the adult but I will save whom I will save who would have taken this for a Law or Covenant And what right or hope doth this give to Christians for their Children more than Pagans And Reader if God have given no condition or character antecedent as a differencing reason or qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not but only told us that he will save whom he list this maketh Infants no subjects of his Kingdom under no Law and so liable to no judgement nor to stand in judgement with the rest of the world but only to be used as beasts or stones by Divine natural motion as he will And then how can you say that any Infants shall be damned or not saved Or that it shall be one of a million at least that shall not For if there be no Law that giveth Right to Pardon and Salvation to any one Infant in the world and yet many are saved it will follow 1. That God is as the prophane say better than his word and will save many to whom
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
consent is the receptive cause which is conditio sine qua non They that will not impartially think of plain cases cannot understand them Your unthankful denying that God hath made any such Promise Covenant or Consent is elsewhere confuted And if I shall say with Davenant and the Synod of Dort that this Covenant being the same that is made with Parents themselves giveth the Children the same Right to Pardon and Life eternal according to their capacity so that faithful Parents should not doubt of the Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy ut Synod Dort Art 1. c. 17. I could better with them bear the consequence of the loss of Gratia Infantilis in some at age than the consequents of 〈◊〉 turning them all out of the visible Church The former I know no Christian that ever opposed for many and many hundred years after Christ and the latter the universal Church as long opposed And yet I will not subscribe that It is certain by the word of God that baptized Infants dying before actual sin are certainly saved without excepting the Infants of Heathens or Infidels wrongfully baptized Mr. T. 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Church-member are not visible Church-members But. Ergo. Profession of faith is the form constituting c. Answ 1. Covenant Consent is the form constituting ex parte Recipientis and this they have reputatively in their Parents whose will is as theirs 2. The Jews Infants had the form constituting a visible member as you confess And that was not circumcision For the uncircumcised females and males too in the wilderness were visible members Nor was it to be born of Jews For apostate Jews forfeited it and Proselytes of other Nations obtained it But it was by consent to Gods Covenant 3. And Christ was a visible member by Divine Revelation His arguings would make against Christs Righteousness Imputed to believers and Adams or the Parents sins imputed to them Mr. T. 5. If Infants be visible Christian Church-members then there may be a visible Church-Christian which consists only of Infants of believers But this is â—bsurd Ergo. Answ Such quibbles seem something when the Will giveth them their force 1. Infants are members of all Kingdoms under Heaven And yet there neither is nor can be a Kingdom of Infants only 2. Members are Essential or Integral Because the exercise of the faculties of the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita is the intended means to the Common Good which is the End of Government therefore there can be no Governed Society Kingdom or other proper Policy of which men that have the use of Reason are not members that there be some such to be the Active part is Essential to the Society But yet Infants that are yet but virtually such are Integral members Mr. T. 6. I argue If Infants be visible Church-members there is some Cause of it But there is no Cause Ergo Answ The Cause efficient is Gods Revealed Donation and Covenant Consent The Cause Receptive or the Condition of Reception is That this be the Child of a Consenting believer Mr. T. To this 1. Mr. T. denyeth any such Covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed which is soon said 2. He saith the Conditional Covenant promiseth Justification Salvation on Condition of faith and not visible Church-membership and so belongs to all as Mr. B. c. Answ 1. It giveth both Justification and visible membership that is Right to both and many other Covenant benefits 2. It belongeth Conditionally to all and Conditionally gives union with Christ and his Church and Pardon and life to all But actually to none till the condition be performed which is a believing Parents consent and regularly his Baptismal dedication Mr. T. If there were a Covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their Infants Christian visible Church-membership As he is the God of Abraham of Infants dying in the wombs of believers at the hour of death Answ It 's true if they be not the Children of visible believers because they are not visibly capable subjects But it being such that we speak of your three instances are abusive 1. Abraham is a visible Church-member of the Church Triumphant where he is I will not believe you if you deny it 2. Infants of visible Christians dying in the womb are in that degree visible Church-members as they are visible persons that is It is a known thing that they are the children of God according to their capacity 3. One visibly believing at the hour of death is a visible Church-member One not visibly believing belongeth not to our case Mr. T. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assigneth is not sufficient But c. For they may all be before the child is born Answ A meer quibble 1. Before he is born I tell you as far as he is visibly the child of a visible Christian so faâ— he is a visible unborn member But as to that degree of visible membership which is proper to born baptizable Infants two causes are wanting to the unborn 1. Gods consent or donation For though the Promise as a donative Instrument was existent a thousand years before it effecteth not the gift till the subject be Receptive or capable God may promise a thousand years before in diem or sub conditione which signifyeth his consent that so and then it shall be due and not otherwise or before These easie things should not be thus winked at 2. The Parents consent is wanting For though the Parent dedicate the child in the womb to God by promise yet he doth not deliver him up in the baptismal Covenant as a visible person till he is born Mr. T. reciting my answer elsewhere saith It deserveth a smile For I make Christ by his Law or Covenant-grant the only cause efficient The rest of his words are 1. To tell us that Justification c. hath a further efficient after the Covenant which causeth Justificability but not actual Justification without mans faith 2. That I err in taking visible membership to be a Right and moral effect Answ I take not that for the picture of the wisest man whom the Painter draweth laughing or smiling And I am now confirmed in that fancy 1. A Testament or Deed of Gift in diem which saith At seven years end that land shall be yours may be the only efficient Instrument long before existent and yet give you no right till the time and then give it Because it effecteth but by signification of the Donors will Must the Christendom of Kingdoms be impetuously questioned by men that know not such rudiments as these 2. That Justification which is given us at our believing which is our Right to Impunity and Life is the Immediate effect of the Covenant Donation and mans faith is
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
would not be harmonical So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability so say they the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him So that as he could not let-sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessarily be punished for evil or rewarded for good that is he might have made him not a man yet having so made him it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity And if the immortality may be so proved from its nature then also its felicity in case of righteousness I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express 1. It is most certain whether the reward or promise be natural or positive that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to or in part and the way to more And it is most certain that man was made holy devoted to God and fit for his service and that in this estate according to the Law of his creation he was to increase and multiply It is most certain therefore that according to the first law of nature Infants should have been Church-members 2. But if their opinion hold that make the reward grounded on the law of nature and not on a meer positive law and you see the reasons are not contemptible then the argument would be yet more advantagious 3. But however it be of the title to glory or eternity it is most certain that according to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had stood The first Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-membership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own Image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency and so Church-members And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate Children in their own estate to be as the Parents were even in Gods Image Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-membership it proves not their visible Church-membership Reply Mark Reader that Gods Law and blessing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members though members What not so notorious a Law and Covenant and Benediction No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out if Innocent Adams must have been shut out He adds 2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance yet not suâ—h a Law or Ordinance as is in question which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates Reply Alas poor Readers that must be thus wearied I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes I know no Right given but it is eventually given nor received but it 's eventually received Admission is an ambiguous word My dictates as he calls them are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God by consenting to his Covenant for themselves and them 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Baptismal Covenanting Ordinance 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them and signifieth his consent to the mutual Covenant which is antecedently to their consent but a conditional consent or Covenant but consequently aâ—tual 4. That accordingly natural interest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member meerly because he is his BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his Creation and Redemption he is a Church-member initially upon heart-consent and by Investiture upon Sacramental consent which I think you mean by Admission 3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove such a Law or Ordinance yet it proves it not such a promise and precept as Mr. B. asserteth Reply Must such dealing as this go for an answer What 's the difference Mr. T. addeth 4. If it did yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature Reply You are hard put to it I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Ordinance Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an Increase and Multiply signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him if Adam had not sinned and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God Alas many go so much further as to assert as truth that had Adam stood nay but in that one temptation yea say some had he but once loved God all his posterity had not been only born Holy but confirmed as the Angels I cannot prove that but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned and so had been visible members And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature let awakened reason think whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children and children in Parents and then whether God have ever reverst this natural order Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it It seemeth out of doubt to me I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt but withal upon the promise of a Redeemer an universal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place Let them deny it that can and dare And it intimateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct interest with their Parents He saith that the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling not birth I would desire him if he can to tell me whether both Cain and Abel were not visible Church-members in Adams family And whether none but the Elect are visible members And whether God call not them that are visible members to that state He saith If this Law be in force all are born without sin Reply The Covenant of Innocency is not in force but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force and that Infants visible Church-membership was founded in Nature and that Law at first And therefore though our Innocency be lost Parents are Parents still And if God
he never gave right to it by promise 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes If besides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie God will save many in a neutral state why may he not saith the ungodly save me also for Infants once deserved punishment by original sin And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves he may do so by me 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know that die in Infancy And do all the promises to the seed of the faithful in the second Commandment and Exod. 34.7 and many another Text mean no such thing as they speak as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition but only I will save my elect And why might not this Covenant I will save my Elect be made with Cain or Cham or Judas as well as with Abraham 2. He saith Abrahams Infants were visible Church-members but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical Reply What a bare put off is that of a man that must say something Is it at all by the Covenant as Evangelical If yea we have our desire If not what meaneth barely but the nakedness of your ill cause 3. Then cometh next And if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk or will not know it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply See Reader some more of the mysterie Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house but Church-membership signified but houshold and civil promises Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult But we may yet mistake him For rather is not a negative It is Rather than Evangelical which is but a preference not a denial O for plain honesty in things divine SECT L. R. B. 2. THat the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Church-member that had Infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose Infants also were not Church-members Except only the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ And whether their Infants be Church-members I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one Infant of a Church-member in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Church-member except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Reply Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer save a cross challenge oft answered and the instance of Timothy To which I say that if Timothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were But his Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal SECT LI. R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that saith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But Infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereof If you say Infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Church-member as the child of a Noble man is of his Honours and title to his Inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediator or head of the Church in his Infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Reply Here is so little said that needs but this remarke that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly which being Accepted of God is to Church-membership as private Marriage to publick where publication is wanting But he denieth that Parents may dedicate them by Baptism But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature if he cannot confute it let him not strive and sin against nature SECT LII R. B. 2. THe law of nature bindeth all Parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Mr. T. Really Infant Baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is and so are kept in presumption c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism c. Reply This nearly concerneth our cause I once inclined to these thoughts my self But I am satisfied 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from personal serious Covenanting with God at age We tell our Children and all the adult that their Infant Covenanting by Parents will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves And that without as serious a faith and consent of
their own then as if they had never been baptized they cannot be saved What hurt then as to this doth their Infant interest do them 2. Yea doubtless it is a great help For 1. To be in the way of Gods Ordinance and Benediction is much 2. And knowing you deny that I add to be conscious of an early engagement may do much to awe the minds of Children yea and to cause them to love that Christ which hath received them and that Society to which they belong 3. If Children till Baptized have any thoughts of dying according to you they must have little hopes of mercy And God accounteth not the spirit of bondage best no not for Children They cannot well be educated in the Love of God who must believe that they are damned if they die and that God hath not given them any promise of life 4. Experience of many Moors servants among us and in our Plantations besides ancient history assureth us that delaying Baptism till age tendeth to make people delay repentance and think I am but as I was and if I sin longer all will be pardoned at baptism and I must after live strictlier and therefore as Constantine and many more they will be baptized Christians when there is no remedy 5. And experience assureth us that it were the way to work out Christianity and restore Infidelity in any Nation For had not Christ early possession and were not Nations discipled and baptized Christians were like to be almost as thin as Puritans now and the multitude being Infidels from a cross interest such as divisions cause would be ready on all occasions as they did in Japan and Monicongo to root them out I take this to be a very concerning consideration whether in reason Infant Baptism be like to do more good or harm The not calling men to serious Covenanting at age doth unspeakable harm To have a few good words about Confirmation in the Liturgie and such as Doct. Hammonds writings of it will not save ignorant ungodly souls nor the souls of the Pastors that betray them I have said my thoughts of this long ago in a Treatise of Confirmation But I must profess that it seemeth to me that if Christ had left it to our wills it is much liker to tend to the good of souls and the propagating Christianity and the strength of the Church for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant Covenant and Church state and as serious a Covenanting also at age when we pass into the Church state of the Adult than to be without the former and left to the expectation of adult baptism alone SECT LIII to LVIII R. B. THe law of nature bindeth Parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here Parents have leave to enter them into the Church which is the most honourable and profitable society Ergo That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such participation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtful cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sense So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own When they speak of duty to God they must be interpreted in the strictest sense When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sense that they will bear 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of self-preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our Children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by than he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawful 3. It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more than a silent leave of Infants Church-membership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Vpon so much encouragement and hope then it is the duty of Parents by the law of nature to enter their Infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the Major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the Infant is not sui juris but is at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the Parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into Covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the child 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own child As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but only for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the Minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to Infants is manifested already and more shall be And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that Infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that Parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. It is certain to us by nature that Infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Common-wealths in the world perfecte sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the laws and capable of honours and
including their Infants but as part of the Analogie as if he had said As we now are all baptized into Christ These things seem to me a certain notification of Gods will herein which in the foresaid former Treatise I have fullier opened and improved And should I stand to answer all the words that Mr. Tombes hath said against it I should needlesly tire the Reader and my Self and lose that time which I cannot spare A Confutation of Mr. Tombes's Reasons Sect. 52. by which he pretendeth to prove that Infants were not reckoned to the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times nor are now Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus If no Infants were part of the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The Antecedent I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no Infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times But c. Ergo c. The Minor proved 1. All visible members of the Church-Christian were to be baptized But no Infants were to be baptized Therefore no Infants were visible members of the Christian Church Answ 1. To the Major they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted Mat. 28.19 but not before when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancie 2. To the Minor If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized what need he write his books Mr. T. 2. They were not visible members of the Church-Christian who were not of the body of Christ But no Infant was of the visible body of Christ proved from 1 Cor. 12.13 All that were of the body of Christ were made to drink into one spirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper But no Infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink that Cup c. Answ Denying the Minor I answer to the proof 1. To the Major 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only and yet now he maketh it to be the visible 2 All is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit which is expresly there said of all the members though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth then Baptism is first included and so if we prove Infants Church-members this Text will prove them to be baptizable according to Mr. T. Remember that 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper he may be turned about to confess himself For 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible if at all but as invisible also and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body have not the Sacrament 2. By this his exposition his adult Baptizing should not make or prove any to be visible Church-members till they drink of the Cup though it were a year or many years 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through scruples about Church-orders or their own fitness which are the cases of multitudes should be visible members Nor those that live where they cannot have the Sacrament Nor any Lay-man in all the Popish Church where the Cup is denied the Laity 2. To the Minor Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament in order to the rest to be partaked of in due time And as not every Church-suspension so Natural-suspension of further priviledges nullifieth not membership Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken But no Infant did partake Answ 1. Christ and his Disciples did not partake of it before the institution 2. No baptized persons partake of it in the interspace between the two Sacraments which with some is a long time 3. A baptized person may die before he drinketh that Cup or may live where it is not lawfully to be had 4. Church-members may be suspended from the Lords Table Therefore the text speaketh not of every member but of the ordinary communion of capable persons Mr. T. Eph. 4.5 The whole Church is one bodie and hath one Lord and one faith But no Infant hath one faith Answ 1. It is spoken of the generality of the noblest and capable members denominating the Church The Apostle saith not that every member hath all these but There is one Lord one faith c. Christ had not one Lord being Lord himself as here understood and yet was a member Christ in the womb cannot be proved to have actually hâ—d that one faith and he was long the chief member before he was baptized And whether ever the twelve Apostles were is uncertain 2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith called objective faith one Creed And this the Church might have and yet not each member actually believe For 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Childs who is used as a member of the Parent Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the Believers the multitude of the Disciples c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Testament Ergo Answ 1. Many texts speak of all that were present only and many speak only of such as the present matter did concern And it is most usual to denominate All or the Body from the Noblest and Greatest part If you were to describe a Kingdom would you not say that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures or men consenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects and the duties of each for the common welfare You would so define it as that Reason Consent and Intention should be in the definition Infants have none of these in act and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now And yet is it not usual with us to say that all the Church met to hear or to do this or that When yet the Infants and many others might be absent The Texts Mr. T. alledgeth are Acts 1.15 The number of the names together were about 120. Answ Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as
this But c. Not to be a Believer a disciple a Minister a Son of God There is the like reason for them as for this Answ Priviledges are 1. Proper to the adult those concern not our case as to be Ministers or common to them with Infants 2. Priviledges consist either in Physical qualities or other Physical accidents and these are given by physical Action and such is Knowledge Belief Love Gifts of utterance health c. Or in Right and Moral Relation Jus Debitum obligatio These are given by Moral means that is by signification of the Donors will by precept obliging promise or signal Donation which is the Instrument of conveyance by that signification As a Testament Deed of Gift Act of pardon and oblivion c. are among men Now do you think that the reason of Physical Qualities and Moral Rights Relations and duties is the same 2. As a Disciple or believer signifieth one that is Reputatively such jure Relationis and as a Son of God signifieth an Adopted heir of heaven loved of God as a reconciled Father in Christ so Infants are such You say after that Christ was habitually and by designation the Head and Prophet of the Church in Infancy and so mihgt Infants be disciples And will you now deny it Again I will say though it offend you that there is no trusting to that mans judgement that looketh all or partially on one side and studieth so eagarly what will serve his cause as that he cannot mind what may be said against it See here what two abhominations you thrust on your pittiful followers which yet I know you hold not your self but the heat of your spirit in desire of victory draweth you to say you mind not what You conclude that none is A Son of God without his own consent And so 1. All Infants are certainly shut out of Heaven for they are no Sons of God without their consent neither by Election Christs intercession Covenant or Gift And I think you will not say that they consent And if no sons no heirs For the Inheritance is only of children And if no sons then are they not Regenerate which is but to be made sons of God by a new Generation and renewed to his Image And do you damn all Infants 2. And consider whether you deny not Christ in Infancy to have been the Son of God according to his humane nature For you can never prove that in that nature he actually consented in the womb or in his Infancy But partiality is rash and blind Mr. T. 12. If there be no Law or ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this Infant visible Church-membership is granted or the listing of Infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then it is not a cause of Infants visible Church-membership which Mr. B. assigns c. Answ I have here proved to you such a Law and Covenant before Christs Incarnation and formerly at large proved it to be continued and renewed by special signification of Christs will since his Incarnation in the Gospel Review now your pittiful Reasons against it The Second Part A CONFUTATION OF THE Strange FORGERIES OF Mr. H. DANVERS Against the ANTIQUITY OF INFANT BAPTISM And of his many Calumnies against my Self and my Writings with a Catalogue of 56 New Commandments and Doctrines which he and the Sectaries who joyn with him in those Calumnies seem to own By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson 1675. The PREFACE SECT I. 1. Of Controversies 2. Of the Weight of this Controversie § 1. IT is a thing that all are not duely informed of How far Controversial Writings and Disputes are to be practised by pious and peaceable men And here as in almost all things else men are hardly cured of one extream but by another I. No doubt but the extream which hath far most injured the Church of Christ hath been the excess of Disputing and given just occasion to Sr. W.'s motto The Itch of Disputing makes the Scab of the Church which is easily discernable both in the Cause and the Effects § 2. 1. In the cause it is too notorious that ordinarily it proceedeth from the depravation of the three faculties of the soul Potestative Intellective Volitive in the three great Principles of iniquity Pride Ignorance and wrath § 3. 1. Did not Pride cause men much to overvalue their own parts and worth Controversie would have shrunk into a narrower compass before this day Men would have come to one another as friends to be informed of what they know not by enquiry and gentle conferences if not as children to School to learn And if grace by hard studies had given one man more insight into any matters than another humility would readily have acknowledged Gods gifts and desired to have the benefit of a friendly communication and whereever God had set up a light the Children of his family would have been ready to work by it It would not have been so hard as now it is for an Ignorant man to know his Ignorance nor to discern when another knoweth more than he § 4. But now alas a multitude that understand not half their Catechism hear their Teachers as Masters hear their Scholars to know whether they say their lesson well or not And the Preacher that saith as they would have him may pass for orthodox at least if not for a very wise man because he is so far as wise as they But if he will presume to teach them more than they know they suspect him of heresie and the repetition of his Sermon which they make is to mangle some sentences which they had not wit enough to understand and thence to proclaim or whisper abroad at least that the Preacher hath some dangerous errors and doth not know so much as they unless it be some luscious unwholesom notions that he offereth them or be a militant wrangler and would list them under him as his troop to serve him in some new raised war and then corrupt nature can magnifie novelties as if they were new revelations from Heaven § 5. And O that the Teachers wanted not the sense of their intellectual imperfections as well as the people But too many think that when they are all ordained into the same office the honour of the same office is equally due to them all and consequently all that honour of Knowledge Parts and Piety without which the honour of the office cannot be well kept up And so when they all walk in the same robes and are called by the same titles matters which they never understood must pass according to the major vote or at least they must not be contradicted nor their ignorance made known And therefore when they have owned or uttered a Doctrine or Sentence their honour is engaged to make it good And they find a far easier way to make ostentation of the Knowledge which they have not by robes titles and
big words than to macerate their bodies by imploying their minds in serious long unwearied studies till they have received into their minds the well digested frame of sacred truths § 6. And if this tribe can keep the major vote as it must be a strangely happy country where they do not whoever will be wiser than they shall be a heretick But if it fall out better and they be the weaker part they will make up their honour by the way of singularity among so many as they can get to believe that they are masters of some excellent truths which almost all the Christian world is unacquainted with § 7. And even in men otherwise truly pious there is so much remaining pride as is greatly gratified by singularity Selfishness and the Old man are but One. And an opinion that is peculiarly their own is as lovely to them as their own Children in comparison of others If they can say ego primus inveni it is sweetest If not yet to be one of a singular Society that is supposed wiser and better and more excellent in their way of worship than all others is very comfortable to them that by taking the elect to be fewer than they are do judge it a good mark to hold what few hold and do as few do § 8. And there may be a conjunction of good and evil in the cause of these effects And from hence we now live among many that fall into various kinds of Sects and every one hopeth for the comforts of singularity in their way Many turn Quakers because they are singular in their austerities And many Congregations will not endure the singing of Gods Praise in Psalms at least in Davids Psalms and some will not have the Scriptures read and some are against humane learning and studies and some against Preaching upon a Text and Praying before and after Sermon and some against ordinary Family-worship and many startle if they hear the Creed the Lords-Prayer and Commandments and hence also the Doctrine of denying all Christians Infants Church-membership hath prospered § 9. And too many honest persons in opposition to ungodliness are disaffected to lawful and laudable things in the worship of God meerly because the Vngodly use them When as experience telleth all the world that they that have no Religion in sincerity will usually joyn with the Religion that is uppermost And so if good Rulers and Teachers set up that which is best the best will be outwardly the way of the ungodly and if we must needs be singular from them we must take the worst and leave them the best to their self deceit and our shame § 10. I have thought by this weakness of some singular people that if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers that were Antinomians and against Infant Baptism and against singing Psalms and against the use of the Creed and Lords Prayer and such other things and withal were themselves of wicked lives and would make Laws for their own way and impose it on the people so that the ungodly multitude did fall into this way it would presently cure most that are now for such opinions And though the Godly and the wicked must be greatly differenced in the Church yet before we are aware our secret Pride sets in with this desire of discipline and maketh us much desire to seem eminently Good by a more notable and conspicuous difference from the common sort of Christians than God in Scripture or reason doth allow 2. And how much Ignorance hath to do in all our controversies would soon be acknowledged if the question concerned not our selves For every disputer accuseth his adversary of Ignorance If they be of ten minds inconsistent nine of them must needs be erroneous and therefore Ignorant and yet every one chargeth it on the rest and thinks that he alone is free Alas that mans soul which here must act in such a puddle of brains and in so frail a receptive engine as it here useth should have such high and confident thoughts of its own untryed and undigested conceptions that will not let Ignorance be acknowledged or cured Most certainly we are all so dark and weak that it is but a few Great necessary things or such as are very plain which we have cause to be confident of without all suspicion of mistake Most certainly natural dulness or short and superficial studies through sloth or diversions or want of right teachers or an early reception of wrong methods or opinions leading unto more and many such causes doth and will keep not only most Christians but most Teachers of the Church in so low a measure of Knowledge as unfitteth them to master and manage very difficult controversies And yet sad experience telleth us that he that is least able to speak is oft least able to hold his tongue And it 's too rare to find a man that is not Ignorant of his Ignorance and that chargeth not him with Pride that will presume to contradict him What wonder then if disputes be endless § 12. 3. And that wrath is in the cause needs no proof but experience while we see men come forth with militant dispositions and animosity is their valour and how to make their adversaries seem contemptible or odious is their work § 13. 2. And if I should but open to you the Disputing evil in the effects as I have done in the Causes what a woful tragedy of 1500 years duration should I present you with But I shall put off that part of the work supposing that sight and experience do inform you more effectually than words can do § 14. On all these accounts I still say as Paul The servant of the Lord must not needlesly strive nor meddle with those wranglings which minister Questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith For the end of the Commandment is Love out of a pure heart and a good Conscience and faith unfeigned And the high pretenders are too often proud knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words whereof cometh envy strife railing evil surmising perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth § 15. II. But yet for all this as Politicians use to tell Tyrants that if God and man did but secure them from all resistance men would flie from them as from Tigers or Crocodiles and suppose their boundless uncontrouled pride and cruelty would be insatiable so I say of Heretitical and truly Schismatical Contenders that If they were once secured that whatever folly heresie or ungodly mischievous conceits they vend and that with the greatest industry and turbulency to deceive the people no man yet must contradict them nor open their folly that it may be known to all and go no further for fear of being taken for a man of disputation controversie and strife this would so embolden them to attempt the seduction of all sorts of people that no place would be safe or quiet §
I impute our calamities to directly But it is next to Church Tyranny the spirit of separation I mean when men cannot so far differ in judgement from others but a perverse zeal for their opinion as some excellent truth of God doth instigate them to run away from those that are against it as if they were the enemies of the truth and God and unworthy of the Communion of such as they which is nothing but a conjunction of Pride Ignorance and Vncharitableness or Malice § 12. I have told these men that when they have spoken never so sharply against Persecutors it is apparent that there is much of the same spirit in themselves One saith of Dissenters Away with such unworthy persons out of the Ministry or out of the Country and the other saith Away with such unworthy persons from your Communion And both contrary to Christs sheep-mark which is Love and both tend to make their Brethren seem unlovely And whom they serve by this means whether the Prince of Love or the Prince of Malignity it 's pity but they knew or at least would consider of it instead of being angry with us when we tell them of it § 13. I am not therefore half so zealous to turn men from the opinion of Anabaptistry as I am to perswade both them and others that it is their duty to live together with mutual forbearance in Love and Church-Communion notwithstanding such differences For which they may see more reasons given by one that once was of their mind and way Mr. William Allen in his Retractation of Separation and His Perswasive to Vnity than any of them can soundly refel though they may too easily reject them § 14. I am perswaded that the formal Ministers and people who make little more use of Baptism than to give it to Infants and to receive it in Infancy have been the greatest occasion of Anabaptistry among us when the people see that all being Baptized in Infancy many afterwards live all their days and never understand what Baptism is and few ever solemnly and distinctly own and renew that Covenant when they come to age unless coming to Church and receiving the Lords Supper with as little understanding be a renewing it this tempteth serious people that understand not the matter well themselves to think that Infant-baptism doth but pollute the Churches by letting in those who know not what they do and after prove prophane or Infidels And they think that it is the only way to reformation to stay till they are ready to devote themselves understandingly to God But this is their mistake For 1. If it were deferred till ripeness of age one part would neglect it and continue Infidels and another part would do all formally as we see they do now at the other Sacrament where the same Covenant is to be renewed 2. There is a better remedy § 15. For we hold that all that are Baptized in Infancy should as understandingly and as seriously and if it may be conveniently as solemnly own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age as if they had never been baptized if not more as being more obliged The reasons of this I have given long ago at large in a Treatise of Confirmation written when we had hope of setting up this Course under the name of Confirmation which some of us practised in our Assemblies not without success To be seriously devoted to God by our Parents first and to be brought at age as seriously to devote our selves to him as any Anabaptist can do is a much liklier way to fill the Church with serious Christians than to leave all men without the sense of an early Infant obligation § 16. I am as fully perswaded that Infants Church-membership and Baptism is according to Gods will as ever I was when I was most engaged in the Controversie And I am perswaded that these Papers of mine to Mr. Tombes are so unsatisfactorily answered as is worse than no Answer and sheweth how little is to be said § 17. Though the Act of Baptizing be a duty and so necessary necessitate praecepti yet Protestants hold that it is not so necessary necessitate medii but that in some cases those that are unbaptized may be saved As in case the Child die before it can be done or in case the absence or delay of the Baptizer be the cause It is true-consenting to his Covenant for our selves and those that we have power to consent and accept it for which Christ hath made necessary to salvation and if he should damn a true Consenter he should damn one that hath the Love of God and one to whom he promiseth salvation John 3.16 18. § 18. It is utterly incongruous to the rest of the Law of Grace which is spiritual and to Christs alterations who took down the Law of burdensom Ceremonies to think that he should lay so great a stress upon the very outward washing as that he would damn true Believers that Love God for want of it when he hath done so much to convince the world that God seeketh such to worship him as will do it in spirit and truth and that Circumcision or Uncircumcision is nothing but Faith that worketh by Love And if Penitent Loving Believers shall not be saved Gods promises give us no assurance or security § 19. When the Apostle Ephes 4.4 5. putteth one Baptism among the necessaries of Church-Concord by Baptism is meant our solemn devoting our selves and ours under that trust to Christ in the Baptismal Covenant which can mean no more but that as there are three things on our part in Baptism 1. Heart-consent ◠Profession of that consent 3. The Reception of washing as the professing symbol So 1. The heart-consent is necessary to our membership of the Church as invisible that is to our union with Christ and our salvation 2. The Profession of Consent as there is opportunity is necessary both to prove the sincerity of Consent it self and to other mens notice of it and so to our membership of the Church as visible 3. And our Professing it by being Baptized is necessary to the regular and orderly manner of our Profession And so far to our concord § 20. And he that knoweth Baptism to be hic et nunc his duty and yet will not receive it sheweth his unsoundness by his disobedience § 21. As Baptism is made our great duty under that name so Profession or Confession of Christ as such is oft mentioned as necessary even to salvation Rom. 10.9 10. 1 Joh. 4.2.3.15 Mat. 10.32 Phil. 2.11 2 John 7. And Baptism being our Open confessing and Owning Christ by a solemn Vow and Covenant it is principally as such that it is necessary to salvation yea and to a perfect membership of the visible Church § 22. Therefore if any man that in a desart or dry Countrey could have no water or that lived where there is no Minister should openly before all the people
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
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