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congruous sense repealable For although a promise be a Law to the Promiser yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed 'T is true the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth but that cannot be repealed that which is done cannot be infectum not done Reply I perceive we must dispute our first principles as well as our Baptism Reader Gods promise in question is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 T. cannot see how this promise can be repealed what not an universal promising Law or Covenant or Instrument The question is not whether it ever was repealed but whether it be repealeable in congruous sense Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth such and such hurtful creatures a Fox c. or that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I think the first Covenant ceased by mans sin without repeal But I cannot say that no promise to the Israelites was repealed upon their sin The non-performance of the condition depriveth the party of the benefit while it is unrepealed but may not God thereupon repeal the Law or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
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
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
quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice
other miracles and a victory he returned with a prosperous navigation saith Beda c. 20. by his own Merits and St. Albanes intercession Afterwards he returned again in a second necessity with Severus and delivered the Britains from Pelagianism who yet lived in such wickedness as Beda after Gildas describeth Here let the Reader note against Mr. Danvers dream 1. That this was done in 429. And if Mr. D. could prove indeed that all the Bishops of France then were Waldenses or of the judgement so called so long after he would do us Knights service against the Papists in the question of the perpetual visibility of the Church But if I cite Mr. Danvers for it I doubt they will laugh at me and make no more of his authority than I do of the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrology 2. Note that Prosper saith it was the Pope that sent Germanus 3. Note that he was sent by the Bishops of France who then did little differ from Rome but submitted to his Primacy and Patriarchate in the Empire though reserving their liberties Read the Epistles of Leo 1. against Hillary Arelat and all that story and you will see how much the Pope usurped there betimes 4. Pope Celestine was the great maintainer of Augustine against Pelagius and so the apter to do this 5. The Pope had before this sent Palladius to the Britains who received him And therefore they were then on some fair terms with him 6. Germanus and Lupus were Bishops and they that sent him and so Antichristian to some Anabaptists 7. Germanus sure was not of Mr. D's Church that used Reliques so strangely for working miracles Was this an Anabaptist 8. This was all done after Augustine had written that no Christian thought Infant-Baptism vain or about that time And yet were all the Britains then of another mind 9. The Bishops of France with Pope Celestine took part with Augustine against Pelagius and sent Lupus with Germanus to do that work And yet were all these Bishops against Augustine about Infant-Baptism which he saith all the Church Vniversal agreed in 10. Lastly the Britains were infected with Pelagianism Pelagius called Morgan being a Britain and Vsher saith some say born the same day with Augustine and Celestius a Scot or Irish man And the Pelagians themselves were for Infant-Baptism And if any Christians in the world had been against it they would have been the likeliest who denyed Original sin Yet even they durst not deny this And is it a credible thing that all these Britains who were some of Pelagius's mind and some of Augustines were yet against both in point of Infant-Baptism Yea and not a word said of this by any writer when their Pelagianism made so great a stir Yet this man gathereth that the Churches of France were Anabaptists contrary to all history because the Waldenses 600 years after were Anabaptists which is also false And the Britains were Anabaptists because the Churches of France sent two Learned men to dispute against Pelagianism in England when the unlearned Britains could not do it Reader will not this kind o◠arguing make thee an Anabaptist or else make thee pitty the seduced party O what a temptation to Popery do such men lay before the people When men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes shall thus pour out falshoods to cheat mankind and the ignorant know not but it may all be true it tempteth men to think that there must be some Authorized men whom the Ignorant must believe before such seducers or else confusion and falshood will take place of truth and the people will be as children tossed up and down and carryed to and fro with every wind of doctrine And indeed a concordant Ministry is so to be preferred though it infer not a Roman infallibility § 42. 6. His last proof that the Britains were against Infant Baptism is because Augustine the Monk was himself so raw and ignorant in the rite as to ask How long the Baptizing of a child might be deferred there being no danger of death Answ I grow ashamed that I have medled with such a Collector A baculo ad angulum Doth it not rather imply that there was no controversie between him and the Britains about Infant-Baptism seeing he never mentioned any such thing § 43. His next witnesses against Infant-Baptism are in the fourth Century called by him Dadoes Sabas Adulphus and Simonis who saith he in his catalogue oppose it And p. 229. he saith to prove it but that they were charged to have an ill opinion of the Sacrament of the Altar and of Infants Baptism And he citeth Histor Tripartita li. 7. c. 11. and some fellow an hundred years ago Answ And have we here any honester dealing than before Read and judge That which the Tripartite History cited by him saith is this that There was then a Sect called Messalians or Euchetes known in the Catalogues of Hereticks and called The Praying Hereticks who expected the operation of some Devil thinking him to be the Spirit of God refusing to work and giving themselves to lie and sleep to expect Revelations Indeed their opinion was that Prayer was all and Baptism and the Lords Supper were nothing dicentes Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse nec laedere that the Sacred or Sacramental food did neither profit nor hurt These men were led by one Dadoes Sabbos Adelphius Hermas and Simeon And Adelphus when old for they hid their opinion bewrayed his error in a speech to Flavian of Antioch that Baptism doth the Baptized person no good but prayer only expelleth the Devil And 1. These men were no more against Infant-Baptism than against the adults Baptism For they were above all Ordinances save Prayer 2. They were against neither as unlawful but against both and other ordinances as unprofitable 3. They carryed this much in secret which they could not have concealed had they not Baptized Infants 4. Some hereticks and all Infidels and Pagans were against all Baptism as well as they And doth any of this prove that any one Christian was against Infant Baptism more than adult § 44. Next he tells you that Faustus Regiensis saith that Personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be Baptized Vincent and Cresconius I spoke to before And he citeth not a word of his writings for it nor any other but one Jacob Merning I suppose a Dutch Anabaptist Answ Reader thou seest still how thou art used Faustus Rhegiensis is a known Author his works are common He is commonly taken for a Semipelagian and he hath a book to prove that souls are bodies which Claudianus Mammertus hath answered But I never read one syllable in him nor in any other that ever wrote of him or against him that should make one doubt whether he was for Infant-baptism Could he be in such a station as he was and have so many writings and so many
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
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
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 §
Tombes had printed the last private papers which past between him and me without my consent I never answered his reply to this day not striving to have the last word and supposing that the studious impartial Reader would find no need of a rejoynder For to me his Reply seemed so empty and next nothing that I thought it unnecessary to say any more § 3. But it is now grown the custom among Papists and Sectaries and almost all the wranglers that trouble the world to scribble somewhat sense or nonsense against that truth which they have not wit or will or humility enough to learn and then say to those that would make them wiser you are answered and it goeth for a victory to any foolery if they can but say such a one that hath written against you is unanswered As if we dealt on such terms with the world in writing as that he that speaketh last that is that liveth longest must be supposed to be in the right Or as if we knew not when we write against the grossest heresie or error that as many words may be said or written for it as against it § 4. And O what pity is it that with the vulgar sort of well-meaning people number goeth for weight and he seemeth to be in the right to them who is nearest them and hath best opportunity to talk to them a few smooth deceitful words for his opinion and to belie and vilifie those that are against him Not but that there are great fundamental Truths which manifest themselves which I hope these honest souls would not be drawn from by an Angel from Heaven But verily no true Charity can be so blind as to deny it that in lower controverted points the knowledge of the vulgar Religious people is so low that he that is lower than an Angel or than a well-studied Divine or than a man of sober solid reason may deceive them having first been himself deceived if he can but speak zealously and reproach others impudently by the spirit described and exorcised in Jam. 3. at large § 5. And I crave thy pity Reader to my self and such as I that our Time and Employment is so much at the will and mercy of such a sort of wrangling men That if I have it in my desire to do Gods Church service upon some greater and more needful subject yet it is in the power of the Devil to stir up the corruption of honest well-meaning Christians to put a necessity on me to do some poor inconsiderable works and leave undone the greater and more excellent § 6. For circumstances may make it a mans duty to do that as presently necessary which within a few years will be of no signification but die with the interests and quarrels of the age § 7. It hath pleased the Lord who did let loose the Serpent upon Adam in Paradise to exercise his Church in almost all ages with temptations from two sorts that seem much contrary but are nearer in disposition and principles than they well understand themselves I mean Church-Tyrants and Church-Dividers And though I and most others of my quality have suffered incomparably more by the former yet it is not a little that I have suffered by the later And especially that by their slanderous and clamorous unquiet importunity they will not give me leave to live by them in peace nor to go on in better work while I meddle not with them I could not obtain that leave from Mr. Tombs And now Mr. D. hath been pleased to open the mouths of so many of his partakers against me as maketh wise men tell me that to be silent will be to be scandalously guilty of their sin And do we live upon these terms that any Railer can call us off from our better services when ever He and Satan please § 8. But my purpose is to meddle with them but this once And if after this these crying Children will bawl and wrangle and foul the house and think that I am made for no better work than either to rock the Cradle or to make them clean I will let them cry and take their course and will no more believe that their humours are the masters of my time § 9. By three or four arguments of his making it hath pleased one Major Danvers a Souldier to call me to this task 1. By heaping up a Catalogue of Accusations against my Doctrine in my Christian Directory 2. By reproaching me for not answering Mr. Tombes 3. By proclaiming me to the world a slanderer who owe the Anabaptists satisfaction for saying that many of them were Baptized naked 4. By perverse citations of my later Writings as if they had been serviceable to his cause 5. By his injury to poor souls and the Churches peace by his ignorant though confident opposition to the truth and writing a Volume of he knoweth not what § 10. And to add to my invitation it is become of late a common saying among the Anabaptists that I am turned to their opinion or very near it but have not humility to retract my former error and openly acknowledge what I hold § 11. The occasion of this is 1. Because I have so many years forborn to answer Mr. Tombes his last 2. Because I seek peace with them and speak for it upon all occasions and seek to abate other mens over-great opposition to them 3. Because upon all occasions I press the consideration and improvement of our Baptism taking it for the summ and Character of our Christianity and the true description of Conversion and the essential mark of Grace and the qualification of Catholick Church-members and the bond of all our Christian duty As if none but Anabaptists could think thus § 12. When I first read Major Danvers Book I thought such a Fardle could not be so regarded as to need an Answer But when his Bookseller came to know of me what I had against it as from him and when I heard how many thousands of them were Printed I rather chose to imitate him that had compassion on a headless multitude than him that said si populus vult decipi decipiatur And they that will not let me rest must bear some of the fruits of my disquietment CHAP. II. More of my Judgement of the Anabaptists and their Cause with a motion to them for peace § 1. I Confess that in my Book against Mr. Tombes I wrote several pages enigmatically of the offensive scandals of the Anabaptists And they that now read them when the occasion is forgotten or unknown will either not understand them or think them too sharp But in all military Controversies no man is so meet a Judge as he that is on the ground § 2. I am almost ready to condemn my self for that and many other things past when I forget the occasion of them and the state that we were in But I will not deny that at that time my heart felt more than I exprest 1.
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
know which of them was the more pernicious § 4. And it must grieve every conscionable and discerning lover of Truth and Peace to observe how these two Church-disturbing parties do by their extremities of opposition increase as well as exasperate each other As the Ithacian Prelates did by the Priscillianists and the Priscillianists by them The Pride covetousness dead formality and cruel violence of Clergie Tyrants maketh the poor Sectaries think that they must go so far from them till they have lost themselves and know not where they are and as Mr. Danvers musters up a catalogue of my sayings in his mode and dress which seem ugly to the poor man that thinks he seeth Antichristianity in such Gospel and natural truths which he understandeth not Like that melancholy person who thinks she seeth Spiders upon every one that comes near her and they must brush them off before she can converse with them though she be caetera sana so those on the other extream think them so fanatick and almost mad that they are apt to suspect every word almost that they say of madness and sometimes thereby injure the truths of the Gospel and soberer people that partake not of their guilt and so say of such as agree with them but in aliquo tertio They are all alike § 5. This was the main cause which made St Martin separate from his neighbour Bishops and deny communion with them to the death Because their persecution of the Priscillianists had so animated the looser sort against strict Religious people that they had brought men under the suspicion of Priscillianism if they did but fast and pray and read and talk of the Scripture It 's easie to see of late who they are that have done the like § 6. When this sort of men see the weakness of the Sectaries and the bold-faced falshood which such as Mr. Danvers obtrude on the world and hear them furiously revile what they understand not it maketh them think that they are fitter for Bedlam than for humane societie And their consciences justifie them for all the cruelties that they use against either them or more innocent persons whom in their ignorance and uncharitableness they number with them § 7. And on the like account when they read and hear their erroneous Doctrines and hear their incongruous words in prayer they think they can never be too strict in shackling them and all others in prescribed forms And nothing quieteth their Consciences in all this so much as the undeniable errors and follies and miscarriages of those that thus provoke them § 8. But in this the Church in Augustines days did not think that way the wisest cure when he saith Afferat ut fieri solet aliquam precem in qua loquatur contra regulam fidei multi quippe irruunt in preces non solum ab imperitis loquacibus sed etiam ab haereticis compositas per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere utuntur iis arbitrantes quod bonae sint Nec tamen quod in eis perversum est evacuat illa quae ibi recta sunt sed ab eis potius evacuatur Aug. de bapt cont Donat. as I remember about lib. 5. c. 11. O truly charitable and peaceable Doctrine And he that will separate from other for every difference or real error in Doctrine or Prayers shall have enow to separate from him § 9. I know nothing that so much multiplieth Sectaries as the notorious miscarriages of Church-Tyrants that oppose them And I know nothing next carnal interest it self that so much multiplieth and confirmeth Papists and Church-Tyrants as the madness of the Sectaries· The wildeness but especially the diversity of their opinions hath done more to increase the number of Papists among us than any thing that ever the Papists themselves could otherwise say for their cause For people see so many giddy with turning round and see so many Sects among us that they are confounded and know not which to be of but they must lay hold of somewhat that is more stable or be wheel-sick § 10. O what a confirmation is it to a Papist to find such a one as Mr. Danvers calling Gods Truths and Ordinances Antichristian Yea our very Baptismal Covenant and dedication to Christ is Antichristian and the chief Fathers and Martyrs of the Church are Antichristian no wonder if I be so And I doubt almost all the Church of Christ for 900 years at least in this mans reckoning And what will the Papists desire more With what scorn will they deride such men Wo be to him by whom offence cometh The chief Quakers are charged by Mr. Faldo and others even some of their own name of denying the person and office of Christ himself It is worth the enquiring whether they reject him not as Antichrist and call not Christianity by the name of Antichristianity CHAP. IV. Of Mr. Danvers's his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism § 1. WHen he hath told you that In his small search shamefully small he cannot find there is any authentick testimony that it was practised on any till the fourth Century he in the next words saith that it is granted that Tertullian spake against it in Africa which is clear evidence that some had been speaking for it in that corner of the world This is no contradiction with him And did they only speak for it and not practise it Speak once like a man And was not that till the fourth Century § 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns The first of the Baptism of the Adult And what Christian ever denied this And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it The second is of the Instituting and asserting of Infant-Baptism of which more anon The third is of his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism And the first of these mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century By which he seemeth to confess that till the third Century he hath no witness against it But I have said so much elsewhere and others more to prove 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism de facto was then in use 2. That he only telleth his opinion of the point of convenience but concludeth not against Infant-Baptism as unlawful 3. That it is most probable he speaketh of the Infants of Heathens 4. That he speaketh from that strict singularity which made him plead also for the Montanists Fanaticism and against second marriages and for his inordinate fastings c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Hereticks though I think him a learned Godly man And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptism I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not against all Infant-Baptism but for it among Christians § 3. His next and great Witness is the Donatists together This is something were it true but it is such a kind of falshood as I must not name in its due epithets lest you think
they had would that prove that the Novatians were seven hundred or eight hundred years before § 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism the sixth Council of Carthage saying that All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy and saith It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not and can signifie nothing against all the former evidence And is it not shame and pity that so publick matters of fact must be handled at this rate What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at to find that one called a man and a Christian and too good for the communion of such as we should be guilty of And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so publick a matter of History as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be produced if it were of any need And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatists hold so well as he and such as he § 30. His next witnesses are the ancient Britains that having received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles times did intirely keep thereto whom Austin the Monk would have engaged especially in Christening children and keeping Easter but in asmuch as they utterly refused to be seduced by him therein c. Answ This is a witness being such a body of witnesses of great importance as that of the Donatists and Novatians was if it were true But it 's all false still And must our own Countrey yea all our Christian Ancestors be thus slandered Whether Britain received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles time if he mean in that time is very doubtful and nothing to our business we have no sufficient proof of any such thing The Reason of the case maketh me conjecture that Christianity was first brought hither by Soldiers of the Roman Legions especially since I read in Beda that the first Temple I find any mention of was built at or near Canterbury by such Soldiers But who ever brought it it 's like they were of the Asian and not the Roman opinion whether Soldiers that had been in the Asian Legions or who else is not known and it is certain that they were not against the observation of Easter For both they and the Scots that concurred with them against the Romans did strictly keep it But all the question was of the due time § 31. Nor is there the least proof or probability that they were against Infant Baptism 1. Because Augustine the Monk that quarrelled with them never chargeth them with it in his Ep. to Gregory or to themselves 2. Beda that was downright against them and a Roman zealot and the ancientest writer after Austins time and lived in the same Country with them and knew them and describeth all the contests with them yet never layeth any such thing to their charge when yet he mentioneth the Rebaptizing of One by Bishop John because it was an ignorant insufficient man for the Priesthood that Baptized him and this a rare instance 3. The Scots that about Easter and other contrarieties to the Romans were of the Britains mind and refused so much as to eat with the Romans yet are charged with no such thing 4. And the controversie continued for above an hundred years after Austins time and great stir and meetings and disputes were about it as Beda tells us at large before the Scots were changed And in all that time there would have been opportunity for their forward adversaries especially Wilfrid afterward St. Boniface of Mentz who was the Chief to have found out this matter of accusation 5. None of the historians near following those times do charge any such thing on them And yet were the old Britains against Infant-Baptism § 32. But to put all out of doubt take the words of Austin to them in his three demands thus by Beda recorded Eccl. Hist li. 2. c. 2. Vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut Ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Romae sanctae Ecclesiae et Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum domini That is 1. That you celebrate Easter at the due time 2. That ye compleat the Ministry of Baptism by which we are born again to God according to the fashion or manner of the holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church 3. That you Preach with us the word of God to the English Nation And what is here of Infant-Baptism How proveth he that that was meant by the Roman manner or fashion of Baptizing Is the subject of Baptism the Manner when about the Manner indeed there were then so many and different ceremonies Nay when above an hundred years before this Austins dayes a wiser Austin had told the Donatists that the whole Church was agreed for Infant-Baptism and no one Christian held it to be in vain sure this was not so long after a Manner peculiar to Rome But thus the honour of our Ancestors and the history of the Church and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us must all be heinously wronged by the falshoods of rash presuming ignorant men § 33. And if this had been as true as it is false that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism it would inform these men that it is not delaying Baptism till riper age that will keep it from formality nor the Church from falling into all impiety For if our eldest historian Gildas may be believed and who may if not he his Countrymen the Britains were Princes Priests and People fallen to such abhominable wickedness murder drunkenness filthy lusts deceit theft cruelty c. that he takes the Princes for wolves and monsters and the Priests for no Priests but traytors excepting some good men among them c. It is neither Infant nor Adult Baptism that will secure against the corrupting of Churches but Grace with either hath saved souls § 34. He cites himself here Fox quoting Beda Polychron and others And what say they Baptizing after the manner of Rome And what 's that to his question But he tells you that Faâ—â—an saith that you give Christendom to children I have not Fabian to examine but if he do when he knoweth that he is an empty fâ—llow of the other day as it were and that he hath nothing but what cometh from Gregory and Beda and that in them there is no such thing will a kâ—â—wn â—aâ—sification of a 〈◊〉 about nine hundred years after disprove the yet vâ—â—ible words of the 〈…〉 which undertake to give you not only the seâ—se but the very terâ—◠§ 35. He proceedeth to prove by argument that the Britains were against-Infant Baptism 1. Because they
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
censorious of them as to think that they need any more to his frustration If they will not must I write another book to tell them what I have written in the former How shall I know that they will any more read the last than the first If Satan have so much power over them that he can make them err and lie and slander and backbite as oft as a man professing zeal for the truth will be his instrument and messenger it is not my writing more books that can save them The end must tell them whether I or they shall be the greater losers by it § 24. I have therefore but these two wayes now to take 1. Whereas this man saith that my doctrine seemeth heynous to every one of my Non-conforming brethren and most Protestants and that I have lost my self among my friends I do demand as their duty and my right the Means of my conviction and reductâ—on from those brethren if any whom he doth not belie I profess my self ready privately or publickly to give them an account of the reasons of all my doctrine and thankfully to retract whatever they shall manifest to be an error And I challenge any of them to prove that ever I refused to be accountable to them or denyed a sober answer to their reasons or refused to learn of any that would teach me or to study as hard to know as they or that ever partiality faction or worldly interest bribed me to deal falsly with my conscience and betray the truth And if after this claim they will be silent I will take them for consenters or if by backbiting only any will still notifie their dissent I will take them for such as I take this writer and in some respect worse though not in all § 25. II. My second remedy is I will go willingly to School to Mr. D. and having said so much for the Learning against the Disputing way I will become his hearer and reader if he have any thing to teach me that savoureth of Truth and Modesty more than this noysome fardel doth which he hath published And to that end I will here give him a Catalogue of the contrary opinions to mine which I desire him solidly to prove If he hold not the contrary doctrines why doth he exclaim against mine as heynous If he do hold the contrary to what I have with due and clear distinction and explication opened and his Readers after the perusing of all my own words together be of his mind I then take these following to be their own opinions and part of their Religion which I desire them to make good and teach them me by sufficient proof CHAP. VIII A Catalogue of some Doctrines of Mr. Danvers and the rest that with him accuse my Christian Directory if indeed they hold the contrary to mine which they accuse as must be supposed by their accusation which as a Learner I intreat any of them solidly to prove OF the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him The falshood of his inserting in a Popish Countrey in their way of Baptizing in that cited place which spake only of the Lutherans I pass by as weary of answering such But I. That it is a sin for any man supposing Infant Baptism a duty to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use though he profess his own dissent and dissallowance of those ceremonies and though he cannot lawfully have it done better but must have that or no Baptism at all II. That in the ancient Churches of the second third and fourth ages it had been better to be unbaptized than to use a white Garment in Baptism as they did or to be anointed as then or to taste Milk and Honey though the Person offering his child to such Baptism had professed his dissent as aforesaid III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second third and fourth and following ages who were Baptized thus Infant or adult had no Baptism but what was worse than none Though Church history certifie us that this use was so universal that it 's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it or refused it By the way it was but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear to foist in Peril of Law when I had not such a word or sense as Peril As if you knew of no Obligation there but from Peril IV. Your pag. 373. ed. 2. That anointing using the white Garment Milk and Honey were Blasphemous rites and Popish before Popery was existent or if otherwise that All Christs Church was Popish then V. Your Pref. ed. 1. That Christs Ministers rightly ordained and dedicated to God in that sacred office are not so much as Relatively holy as separated to God therein VI. That Temples and Church Vtensils devoted and lawfully separated by man to holy uses either are not justly Related to God as so separated or though so separated and Related are in no degree to be called Holy VII Your Pref. 16. That no Reverence is due to Ministers and Church utensils VIII Ibid. To be uncovered in the Church and use reverent carriage and gestures there doth not at all tend to preserve due reverence to God and his worship IX Ibid. That the unjust alienation of Temples Vtensils lands dayes which were separated by God himself is no sacriledge no not to have turned the Temple of old and the sacred things to a common use unjustly nor the Lords day now But thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou more than commit Sacriledge Even teach men so to do and say It is no Sacriledge no not when God himself is the separater and man the unjust alienater And yet is Infant-Baptism a sin X. Ibid. That it 's no sacriledge unjustly to alienate things justly consecrated and separated to God by man as Ministers Lands Vtensils c. Remember Ananias and Saphira XI Ibid. That it is a sin to call a Minister a Priest though it be done in no ill design nor with any scandal or temptation to error and though he that useth the word profess that he doth it but as a translation of the Greek word Presbyter and as God himself doth Rev. 1.6 and 5.10 and 20.6 and 1 Pet. 2. 5.9 Question Whether it is sinfully used in Scripture XII Ib. Accordingly it is sin to use the word Altar for Table or the word Sacrifice for worship as thanksgiving c. though with all the foresaid cautions and though God so use them in the Scripture 1 Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 16. Phil. 4.18 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.10 Rev. 6.9 and 8.3 5. and 16.7 And that all the ancient writers and Churches sinned that so spake XIII That no sober Christians should allow each other the Liberty of such phrases without censoriousness or breach of Charity and peace Ibid. pref XIV Ibid.
It is a sin to set a Rail about the Communion Table though it be not done to any ill design nor with scandal but only to keep dogs from pissing or dunging at it and boyes from abusing it XV. That in such case yea though scandal be removed by the publick profession of the Church it is a sin to come to such a railed table to communicate even when no sinful distance between the Clergie and Laity is intended XVI Ibid. Christians ought to censure and condemn each other if one come to such a Table or Receive kneeling supposing it a lawful thing XVII Ibid. That it is a sin to keep a thankful remembrance of Gods mercy to his Church by an anniversary day of solemnity in giving them any Apostle Martyr or extraordinary instrument of his blessing as some keep their birthdays or wedding-dayes or dayes of some great deliverance and England the fifth of November Though it be not terminated in the honour of a Saint but of God nor made equal to the Lords day nor kept otherwise than spiritually and piously XVIII Ibid. That for a man that is against commanding the Abstinence of Lent and against obeying such commands as an Imitation of Christ's forty dayes fasting and in all cases of injury to our souls bodies or others yet to say that he is not able to prove it a sin to obey by meer abstinence when the Magistrate peremptorily commandeth it meerly in Commemoration and not Imitation of Christ's fast is a sin in him that saith it though it be true And consequently though it would do no harm to my self or others I ought rather to die than to forbear flesh in Lent if the King command it XIX Ibid. That Church Musick and consequently singing which is the prime Musick is no help to any man in the service of God XX. Ib. That though he find it a help it is sin for any man to use it XXI That either Christ did not joyn with the Jews in worship which had Musick in the Temple or else he sinned in so doing XXII That the experience of prejudiced self-conceited men that know not what melody is must be set against the experience of others so far as to deprive them of all such helps and mercies as the other find no benefit by As singing is now cast out of many Churches XXIII That it is no wrong to Ignorant Christians to put such whimsies and scruples into their heads XXIV Ib. It is a sin to Vow Chastity for any man in the world though it be with this exception or condition Unless any thing shall fall out which shall make it a sin to me not to marry And though under the most extraordinary necessities of avoiding marriage he find such confirmation of his Resolutions needful XXV Ib. That it is in no Case lawful to keep a Vow of Chastity at least among the Papists And consequently whereas Christ saith He that can keep this saying Let him It is every mans duty to break Chastity that hath once vowed it though it were no duty but a sin before For doubtless Marriage is a sin accidentally to some though not in its own nature and far from being a duty to all But according to this doctrine if a man were eighty years old and utterly impotent and unable to break his vow of Chastity if he would he is bound to do it which he cannot do and to break his vow when he cannot break it or if an old mans marriage that hath no necessity would undo himself and his former children he is bound to marry if he have but once vowed that he will not or at least he may do it For which of the contraries you chuse May or Must I am uncertain XXVI Ib. That either it was a sin to put Pictures in the Geneva Bibles and a sin to have our Dutch Chimney bricks which contain all the history of the Gospel or any other Image of Christ crucified wherever or once to see such a Picture or else it is a sin to have any holy affection stirr'd up in our hearts by seeing it so that though all things are sanctified and pure to the pure and I may excite holy affections when I see but a worm or flower or any creature or a house or any work of man yea when I see the sins of the wicked I may stir up thankfulness for grace yet if I see in a Chimney piece or a Geneva Bible or else-where the Image of Christ crucified it is a sin to excite holy affections thereupon Though the twenty one Cases which I have named as unlawful to use an Image in be every one observed as the Cases of danger scandal and all the rest XXVII The Image of Christ Crucified in the Imagination or mind of a Believer is a sin Therefore it is a sin to think of a Crucified Christ or to know Christ crucified or to love Christ crucified as such For it is impossible to think on him know him or love him as crucified without the Image of him on the mind Therefore Paul determined to do nothing but sin when he determined to know nothing but Christ and him crucified and instead of anathematizing them that love him not he should have anathematized or reproved all that love him as crucified Do you and your Companions know that you are renouncing your Baptism and Christianity and the Cross of Christ while you would rebaptize us all I charge it not on you as your meaning But if it be not the downright consequence of the words of all my Religious backbiters who say that the Image of Christ crucified befitteth not our minds or imaginations but is a sin there I have lost all my reasoning faculty and know not what Man or Reason is XXVIII Ibid. Ed. 2. p. 372. That the Ordination and Ministerial Office received by any that live in Communion with the Church of Rome and consequently all their baptizings and other ministrations are not only sins but nullities Though they were such as Bernard Malachie Patrick Gerson Ferus Kempis Gerard Zurphaniensis c. And so none of the English Nation had true baptism from their first Conversion by Augustine till the Reformation but all died unbaptized and should have been baptized again And so should all baptized by them in any Kingdoms of Europe or the World and so Luther Zuinglius Martyr Musculus and the rest of our first Reformers were never Christned but all dyed unbaptized persons and should have been baptized after their conversion XXIX Ib. That it were better have all Europe unbaptized Infants and adult than such as Bernard Ferus Cassander c. should baptize them though they had leave to protest against all that is sinful in it and were put upon no sinful promises professions or acts themselves XXX Ib. That it is a sin for those in any Country that can have no other to consent that a Papist Priest do teach a Child to Speak or to Read or
the Baptism of water but it is necessary to receive it when the opportunity of circumstance is offered And seeing whatever cometh to pass doth come to pass of necessity it maybe said that such a one cannot be saved without such Baptism And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity he saith Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet The Reader must pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer which may thus be Englished But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit It seemeth that whereas Tertullian Mr. D.'s first witness was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity but not for womens that Wickliffe was for womens also And to the next quâ—stion Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptism could not be had be all damned he answereth Et per haec respondeo ad c. that is And by this I answer your third objection granting that God if he will may damn such an Infant and do him no wrong and if he will he can save him And I dare not define either part nor am I careful about reputation or getting evidence in the case but as a dumb man am silent humbly confesing my ignorance using conditional words because it is not yet clear to me whether such an Infant shall be saved or damned But I know that whatever God doth in it will be just and a work of mercy to be praised of all the faithful And let not them like presumptuous fools pour out themselves that of their own authority without knowledge define any thing in that matter Qui autem dicit c. But he that saith that in this case put an Infant shall be saved as it is pious to believe he doth superfluously uncertain himself more than will profit him But there are some things in Parents power though lapsed into a thing Past for which it is necessary by Gods just judgement that so it should come to pass Therefore he that defineth that neither Parents nor people so sinned that it should so come to pass doth speak as a Pie on the head of his own knowledge But we believe it as a point of faith that nothing befalls a man after the first grace unless some part of mankind either merit or demerit that this shall come to pass In the next thirteenth Chapter he proceedeth to answer the question Quomodo animae talium Infantium sine peccato actuali decedentium punientur Having before spoken of Infants dying unbaptized unavoidably that is How the souls of such Infants shall be punished whether all equally or unequally and whether only with the punishment of loss or also of sense And he concludeth contrary to the greater part of the Papists that they shall have both the punishment of Loss and Sense and Note that that Necesse est peccata originalia hominum esse inaequalia sicut decedentes in originalibus sunt propter illa inaequaliter condemnandi Nam juxta dicta omnes condemnati pro originalibus sunt condemnandi tam poena damni quam poena sensus sed impossibile est quod condemnentur aequaliter omnino illis poenis ergo relinquitur quod peccata quibus illas poenas demeruerunt inaequalia sunt dicenda That is It must needs be that the Original sins of men are unequal as those that die in Original sins are unequally to be condemned for them For as is said all that are condemned for original sin are condemned both with the punishment of Loss and of Sense But it is impossible that they should be damned altogether equally with those pains Therefore it remaineth that the sins by which they deserved those punishments be said to be unequal Reader I have been the larger in transcribing and translating the words of Wickliffe because an Author is not so well understood by a line or two dismembred from the rest as by whole discourses and so that his sense may be past all controversie Here it is visible that Wickliff was so far from denying Infant-Baptism that 1. He expresly asserteth it 2. He never so much as noteth it for any controversie nor maketh any doubt or question about it 3. Yea he taketh it to be bold presumption for any to take upon them to know whether an Infant that dyeth unavoidably unbaptized be saved or not but only saith God can do it if he will and he can damn him 4. And to those that say that the Parents are not in the fault nor the people seeing they intended his Baptism he saith that many things come to pass for past sins of Parents and people and therefore that cannot be concluded and nothing after the first grace cometh to pass unmerited 5. And he concludeth that those of them that are damned for original sin are punished with pain of loss and sense but unequally having unequal original sins 6. But Baptism he asserteth doth put away all sin in the rightly Baptized 7. And that when Infants are rightly Baptized with water they are Baptized with the third Baptism having Baptismal grace 8. That it is according to Christs rule that Infants be brought to the Church to be Baptized And now Reader judge what a sad case poor honest ignorant Christians are in that must have their souls seduced troubled and led into Love-killing alienations and separations and censures of Christs Church and of their particular brethren by such a man as this And whether they that dare use souls at this rate are so much better than us as to be above our communion Nay whether those that lately revile the Zeal of dissenters as cherishing the most odious crimes be not too much scandalized and hardened by such dealings When a man as pleading for Christ and Baptism dare not only print such things but stand to them in a second edition and defend them by a second book and Rage and be Confident in reviling those that tell him of his untruths § 10. But he hath many pretended reasons to prove that Wickliff was against Infant-Baptism and some of them out of the very Chapters which I have transcribed 1. Saith he He asserted two Sacraments 2. That believers must be baptized in pure water And what are these to the purpose 3 That believers are the only subjects of Baptism A gross untruth But he giveth you the words that prove it Ideo absque dubitatione si iste insensibilis baptismus affuerit baptizatus à crimine est mundatus si ille defuerit quantumcunque essent priores baptismus non prodest animae ad salutem I gave you the words before And did the man think that this is any thing to his purpose Wickliff saith Water Baptism saveth no soul young or old without the Baptism of the Spirit Therefore saith Mr. D. Wickliff saith that Believers are the only
some do yet reason is reason Can we think that when Christ was seen after his resurrection of more than 500 Brethren at once that only 120 of them were Christians And can we think that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and many more were not timerous faint-hearted Christians It 's like that the text meaneth that this 120 was the number of those bold confirmed Christians who so quickly after Christs death appeared in open profession and conjunction with the Apostles and had opportunity to assemble at that time and place The next is Act. 2.1 They were all with one accord in one place Answ This needeth no other answer than as before The other texts Act. 2.41 44. 4.4 23 24. 5.11 13 14. 6.1 2 7. 8.1 15.22 1 Cor. 14.23 need no other answer His exposition would sometimes exclude women and sometimes many of the men Doth he believe no man or woman was a member of the Church Act. 15.22 who did not send men of their own company Nor any man or woman a member of the Church at Jerusalem that did not being scattered go about Preaching Act. 8.1 c. 1 Cor. 14. it is said You may all prophesie and yet women are forbidden Mr. T. 4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible to whom the things ascribed to the whole Church did not agree But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to Infants Ergo Answ This is fully answered already It is most usual to ascribe that to a Church or other Society which is done only by the most considerable part As I said before when rational Consent Contract Intention are ascribed to a Kingdom which is constituted by the consent of King and Subjects and yet Infants are members who consent not save by their Parents The Church meeteth to choose a Pastor when yet the women meet not The Church admonisheth a faulty member when every woman doth not admonish him Our Churches meet all to hear when Children meet not whom we take for members These are not satisfactory allegations being contrary to common use of words and to many texts of Scripture Mr. T. The Minor is proved Matth. 16.18 On this Rock will I build my Church viz. by Preaching Answ When Preaching converted the Parents they devoted themselves to God and all that were in their trust and power and that Preaching brought in by consequence the Infants that did not hear I prove it 1. Christ commandeth the discipling of Nations and baptizing them that is as much as in the Preacher lieth But Infants are part of those Nations Therefore he commandeth the discipling and baptizing of Infants as much as in the Preacher lay which could be done but by the success of preaching on the Parents 2. The Kingdoms of the world are made the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ But Infants are members of all those Kingdoms But this is done at large elsewhere Mr. T. 1 Cor. 1.2 called to be Saints Act. 2.41 47. 5.14 They that were added to the Church did hear and believe c. Answ I will not weary the Reader with repeating the same answers to the like things Mr. T. 5. They who are not reckoned Christs Disciples were not visible Church-members But Infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples ergo Answ 1. What is said before to the other Texts answereth all these The Actions of adult Disciples only were in mention 2. Infants are called Disciples Acts 15. as I have elsewhere proved on whose neck the yoak of Circumcision was laid And in Matth. 28.19 when Nations are to be discipled 3. Mr. T. himself confesseth that Christ was habitually and by designation a Prophet in Infancy and that so may Infants be Disciples Mr. T. 6. If in the distribution of the members of the Church then Infants are not comprehended then Infants were not visible Church-members But c. Answ 1. Here he instanceth in 1. The sex Men and Women 2. Jews and Gentiles 3. Circumcision and uncircumcision mentioned but not Infants But if Infants be of neither sex male nor female nor of Jews or Gentiles nor circumcision nor uncircumcision I plead not for them 2. If those Texts cited by you mention not Infants others do as I have elsewhere proved Our children are called Holy and a blessed seed and received by Christ and of such is the Kingdom of God c. And you confess it of Christ himself in his Infancie and yet now forget it or contradict your self Mr. T. 2. I argue from the common received definitions of the visible Church Acts 19. of the Church of England A congregation of faithful men c. Answ And so Kingdoms and all Societies that Infants are members of are accordingly defined as is aforesaid You cannot deny it And was not the Church before Christs incarnation a society of faithful men when yet you confess that Infants were visible parts of is Mr. T. 3. I argue They are no visible members of the Christian Church to whom no note whereby a visible Christian Church or Church-membership is discernable doth agree But c. ergo Answ When a man thinks only what to say for his cause and never thinks what can be said against it his judgement is of little value 1. All that agreeth to Infants which was requisite to a visible Infant member before Christs coming And do you not confess that they were members then among the Jews 2. Did nothing in Christ himself in Infancy agree with visible membership Yes the open Revelations of God as to a visible person You confess before as much as I need 3. The essentiating qualification of a Church-member is Covenant-consent such as God according to the sense of his offered Covenant will accept as such But Infants have this Covenant-consent seeing they consent by their Parents who are entrusted to do it for them as if they were parts of themselves As the Jews Infants did Mutual consent of God and themselves by their Parents is it that maketh them members I have oft wondered to read in orthodox Divines that the Word purely preached Sacraments and Discipline are the marks of the true Church No doubt but Heart-consent to the Baptismal Covenant of Grace maketh a sincere member of the true Church which the Infant doth by the Parent and professed consent to the same Covenant maketh a visible member which regularly must be by Baptism for investiture But a true Church may long by persecution be hindred from publick assemblies Preaching Sacraments and Discipline And may have much corruption in all these Mr. T. maketh this mutual consent as two distinct pretended Notes denying either of them to be true marks Answ Neither the Princes consent alone nor the Subjects alone maketh a Common-wealth Neither the Husbands consent alone or the Wives maketh a marriage but both conjunct So here Mutual consent maketh a Church-member But so that Gods Consent is the Donative efficient cause and mans