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resolved in both these and so yield that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said than is said yet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
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
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
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
no efficient but a Recipient cause of it As even they confess that call it a Receiving Instrument And yet we have it not till we believe or consent Who would have thought that such a mâ—n as you had taken your own faith to be an efficient cause of your own Justification and so that you justifie your self And what if one give land to you and your heirs It is none of theirs till they are in being And yet their birth is no efficient cause but only the cause of the subjects receptive capacity I am ashamed that you put me thus to catechize you Mr. T. 5. If visible Church-membership be antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it But c. Ergo Answ The word Interest may signifie the Interest that fallen mankind hath in the Covenant as conditional antecedent to mans consent And thus I suppose neither you nor I here speak of it But if by my Interest you mean that I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to its benefits I answer Some benefits follow long after but when I consent then I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to union with Christ in the first instant and consequently with his Church or body in the second so that here is no such thing as your feigned membership before Covenant interest that is before a Right to that Relation by Gods donation And as 〈…〉 former dream that this is not a Right anâ— moral effect but a physical it was your self and not I that subjected you to the shame of such an assertion which I will no more confute Mr. T. 6. If the Covenant c. be the only 〈…〉 bought Orphans of Turks wholly at our dispose are no visible members c. Answ No friend of truth will run into the dark with a controversie and argue à minus notis Many judicious Divines think that Gods Covenant with Abrahams Infants born in his house proveth that two things go to make up the capacity of an Infant for baptism 1. That he be his own and at his dispose who offereth him to God 2. That he be offered or dedicated by a Consenting Owner Now their reason is because if they be our own we have the dispose of them for their good and our wills are theirs But the case is most clear about those that by Generation are our own and darker about those that are by Adoption or purchase our own Now here you do nothing but deny the darker which you cannot disprove and thence the plainer which we have fully proved Mr. T. 7. If the Covenant oâ— Law with the Parents actual faith without profession make not the Parent a visible Church-member neither doth it the child But Ergo. Answ I grant both major and minor He that is not known to have faith is not a visible adult member And he that is not known to be the justly reputed child of a professed believer is 〈◊〉 an Infant Church-member And what 's this 〈◊〉 our controversie Heart consent maketh a mystical or invisible Christian and member and Professed belief that is Believing Consent maketh a visible member of the parent and is necessary to the visible membership of the child If I may call that Making them which is but the Disposition of the material Receptive constitutive cause It 's pitty we should have need to talk at this rate Mr. T. 8. If persons are visible Church-members and not by the Covenant of Grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant is the sole efficient of visible Church-membership The minor is proved in Judas and hypocrites Answ 1. They are not the sole efficient Gods Love and mercy also is efficient 2. You profess your self that the name Christian and Church-member are equivocal as to the sincere and the hypocrites If they be not the same things no wonder if they have not the same causes That Donation or Covenant may be the sole nearest Instrumental efficient of True membership and yet not of Equivocal 3. God who is our Paternal Beneficient Ruler doth give some of his benefits by his Law or Covenant absolutely and antecedently to mans conditions and some consequently as Rewards And Gods Laws having first a Preceptive part as well as a Donative or Premiant a Right may accrue in foro ecclesiae to an hypocrite from that precept As e. g. God antecedently doth by his Covenant give the world an Impunity as to the punishment of Drowning it And so by his common Law of Grace he giveth the world many common mercies by a Redeemer and perhaps many by that you call a physical act immediately And by his Law he having given a conditional pardon and life to all commandeth his Ministers to offer it and All men to Accept it and his Ministers to judge by mens profession and to use professed Accepters as real because we cannot see the heart This being so when the hypocrite professeth his consent the Law obligeth the Minister and Church to receive it by which in foro ecclesiae he hath a right to his Church station And Christ himself called Judas and sent him out to Preach and his mandates were as Laws So that the Right that an hypocrite hath he hath by the Law which obligeth the Church to use him as a true believer upon his professing to be such None of this can be denyed But Judas was called immediately by Christ himself and his follow me was a precept which gave him a Right to his Relation Mr. T. 9. If Infants are visible members by the Covenant on Condition that the Parents c. then either the next Parents or in any generation precedent c. Answ The next Parents that are Owners of the child and have the trust and power of disposing of him or covenanting for him And the Reason is because they have 1. That Propriety and 2. That trust and power Mr. T. 10. If an Infants visible Church-membership be by the Covenant on the Parents actual believing and not a bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known c. Answ I pitty Readers that must be troubled with such kind of talk 1. The Right of the child is upon the Believing Parents dedication of that child to God by consenting that he be in the mutual Covenant 2. Heart consent known only to God giveth no Right coram ecclesia known to men but only to such mercy as God who only knoweth it giveth without the Churches judgement 3. Believing and profession qualifie for Right in the Judgement both of God and of the Church 4. Profession without consenting faith qualifieth for Right in the Churches judgement according to Gods Command who biddeth them so judge and do Wrangle not against plain truth Mr. T. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a Covenant upon the Parents faith without the persons own act and consent then neither
devote himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the Baptismal Covenant and solemnly profess himself a Christian that man were a true member of the visible Church though defective as to the mode of entrance and were to be numbered with Christians And Constantine and many another were called Christians long before they were baptized And it were injurious to the Rationality and spirituality of Christs Covenant to feign him to be so ceremonious as to reject a sound professing believer for want of water § 23. Though Augustine be called durus pater Infantum and be supposed for some passages by many Papists and others to damn all unbaptized persons save Martyrs yet these following words among others in his later times in his deliberate disputes against the Donatists fully shew his contrary judgement which yet I believe the Interest of his cause against the Donatists was a help to in this point And remember that he confirmeth it in his Retractations by retracting only the instance of the thief on the cross as uncertain whether he was baptized or not § 24. Aug de baptis cont Donat. li. 4. c. 29. Quod etiam atque etiam considerans invenio non tantum Passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere sed etiam Fidem conversionemque Cordis si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest Et Cap. 24. Cum Ministerium baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articulus necessitatis excludit baptismus quidem potest inesse ubi conversio cordis defuerit Conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo sed contempto non potest neque enim ullo modo dicenda est conversio cordis ad Deum cum Dei sacramentum contemnitur Conversion then will save without baptism when baptism is not contemned It is the contempt that destroyeth and that as it proveth men unconverted And this he professeth to be his judgement after long and great consideration § 25. Baptism is to Christianity much like what Ordination is to the sacred Ministry and what solemn Matrimony is to Marriage It is necessary as a Duty and as a Means to our ordinary and regular admittance to the Communion of the Church But as in case there were no Ordainer to be had in a far Countrey in America no doubt but a qualified person might become a Pastor rather than God should have no Church nor be solemnly worshipped And as in case there could be no regular solemnization of Marriage as in such a wilderness a published consent may tie the knot so in case there could be no Baptizing a solemn Profession and Covenanting would serve to Gods acceptance and to a right to the Christian name § 26. I only leave it to Christian Charity and wisdom to consider how far some mens Education natural weakness of judgement and other impediments of information may make their error against Infant Baptism to participate of such a Necessity The case hath its difficulties Papists and Protestants confess it as to Scripture evidence Weak men cannot know all things And even considerable heads that have heard and thought of much against it which they cannot answer may grow very confident that they are in the right and after by that prejudice may become uncapable of what should satisfie them Abundance of the sons of the Church that talk most against them give such weak reasons for Infant Baptism and are so unable to confute an Anabaptist as sheweth that it is not More knowledge but somewhat else more inclining them to the truth therein that keepeth them right § 27. If the case were whether the Lords Supper might be Administred with Beer or Milk where there is no Wine Or whether Baptism might be Administred by Milk or Wine where there is no water suppose the affirming party were certainly in the right yet if the contrary minded should say I own Christs Sacrament and solemnly profess my consent to his Covenant and I would participate as you do but that I take it to be a sin and with all the means that I can use in conference reading meditation prayer my judgement is not changed I should not break such communion with such a man as he were capable and willing to hold with the Church And how near some Anabaptists case is to this I leave to consideration § 28. But making no question but many of them are far better men than I and knowing my self lyable to error and knowing how much Christ in his promises layeth upon sincerity of Faith and Love more than upon ceremony and having endeavoured to learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice As I am far more offended at their Schism or separation from Communion with our Churches than at their opinion so I will here lay down those terms on which I am perswaded good and sober men will be willing on both sides to agree and hold communion Or on which I am sure I would gladly live in brotherly love and communion with them my self § 29. Let the Anabaptists consent to and profess as followeth or to this sense Though we judge Infant Baptism dissonant from Christs instituted order yet finding that God hath made many promises to the seed of the faithful above others and that Christ expressed his readiness to receive little children when they were brought to him for his blessing and knowing that all Christian Parents should earnestly desire that their children may be the children of God through Christ and should devote them to him as far as is in their power and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this power and Christs promises we do here solemnly profess that we thankfully desire all those mercies for this child which God hath promised to such in his word and that we heartily offer devote and dedicate this child to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as far as he hath given us power to do it beseeching him accordingly to accept him And we promise faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and as we are able to perswade him when he is capable to believe in Christ and solemnly devote himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism Let this much be done in the Church or so openly as may satisfie the Church that they are not despisers of Gods mercies nor their childrens souls Much more would it tend to our quietness and concord if those that profess that they cannot satisfie their consciences in their Infant Baptism would but do as the Liturgie doth by those whose Baptism is uncertain If thou be not Baptized I Baptize thee and so would say Being uncertain whether my Infant Baptism be valid If it be not I now receive that which is And when they have satisfied their consciences would live quietly in the Love and communion of the Church Who would
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