even visible mutual covenanting make not church-Church-members visible what doth You see what he hath brought the ancient and later Church-membership Circumcision and Baptism to I think to nothing As formal Pontifician Church-tyrants when they have mortified some ordinance and turned it into an Image make an engine of it to trouble the Church and silence the Preachers and serious practisers of the Gospel with These men make nothing of Church-membership and then restlesly trouble the Church-about it SECT XXVI R. B. HAving thus opened the terms Law and Precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their Children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a Law or Precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a Law or Precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. It was against no Law 2. It is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of Law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but only non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad poenam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no Law obligeth ad poenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their Children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some Law or Precept as its proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some Law or Precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no Law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the Law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankful If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a Law or Precept For a Precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no Law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the Law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithful and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own Ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a Law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a Law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring Infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate Infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law for this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a Law or Precept 3. We shall anon produce the Law or Precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of its own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without Precepts or Laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a Son without a Father or any relation without its foundation or effect without its cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Mr. T. would first perswade the Reader that I mean nothing but Circumcision Reply Long ago I told you that 1. The Females were not circumcised 2. Nor the Males for forty years in the wilderness And yet were all Church-members by being Gods Covenanted people And so was Israel before Circumcision His terms of the hissing of a Goose and the snarling of a Cur and other such I account lighter than the least of his injuries to the truth SECT XXVII R. B. THE fifth Question requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no Law or Precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise
Cause of Being and Motion as such As a free Benefactor he is the first Cause of all our Good as such And as a Sapiential Rector and Benefactor conjunctly that is by Paternal government he is the first cause of Right Being and Motion are the effects of Physical efficiency Jus vel Debitum is the very formal effect or object of Moral Efficiency by a Rector and the formal object of Ethicks To be a Church-member is to have a stated Relation consisting in Right to the Benefits and obligation to the duty as was said before He denieth this to be any Right and to have any such Civil-moral cause as Right hath but to be quid Physicum as Health strength Riches and an answerable Physical cause Let the shame of this ignorance reform the common error of Schools that teach not their children betimes the principles of Ethicks Politicks or Governing Order It is a shame that at 16. years old any should be so ignorant as these words import I must speak it or I comply with the powers of darkness that so shamefully oppose the truth SECT XXIV XXV R. B. 2. GOD hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it The second Proposition to be proved is that there was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant and Church-membership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word Law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum majestatis obligans aut ad obedientiam aut ad poenam But this leaves out the premiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if Politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a twofold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the premiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor Regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be multiplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will only call that a law which is written or at least a well known custom obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a Law and justly rejected by the wisest Politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law only to him that hath them Mr. T. I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for Parents to pray for their Children to breed them up yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their Infant Children to be his and will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer 3. That though Parents may enter into Covenant for their Children as Deut. 29.12 they do not by this make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God will be their God Reply What a deal of the Gospel and the Churches mercys do these men deny 1. The very nature of our own Holy Covenant is that in it we give up to God our selves and all that is ours according to the capacity of that all And as our Riches are devoted hereby as capable utensils so our Infants as capable of Infant Relation Obligation and Right What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is His If you except Liberty Health Life you are hypocrites And can you except Children It 's true this is but so far as they are our own and we say no more when they have a will to choose for themselves they must do it 2. I have fully proved Scripture commands for Parents to offer their Children to God and that signifieth his will to accept what he commandeth them to offer And his promises to shew mercy to them as theirs are plain and many which I must not tire the Reader with repeating Mr. T. addeth That if there were such a promise and duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make Infants visible church-Church-members Reply Reader are not the Anabaptists ductile men where they like as well as intractable where they dislike that they will follow such a Leader as this Promise and Duty of accepting and re-engaging aggravateth the sin of Rebels that reject it but if these performed
you bestow some more diligence to inform us and not put us off with the raw name of a transeunt fact opposed to these Certainly if it be a civil or legal action the product or effect of it is jus or debitum some due or right And that is either 1. A dueness of somewhat from us which is either somewhat to be done or somewhat to be given 2. Or a dueness of something to us which is either of good or evil If good it is either by contract or donation whether by a Testament praemiant Law or the like if evil it is either by some poenal Law or voluntary agreement Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeth 1. A right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerful and graciou Soveraign to such Subjects and from such a Head to his Members As also a right to my station in the Body and to the inseparable benefits thereof 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ acknowledged and promised actually or virtually really or reputatively Now for the first how can God be related unto me as my God or Christ as my Saviviour and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings by any other way than his own free gift This gift must be some signification of his will For his secret will is not a gift but a purpose of giving This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action which is a signifying of the Donors will and can be by no way but either pure donation contract testament or law In our case it must needs partake of the nature of all these It is not from one in any equality nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us Being therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Benefactor it must needs be by pure donation or it cannot be ours Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise or by his word and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance and engagement to certain fidelity gratitude and duty â—nd so is the stipulator and we the promisers in the latter part of the action it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant though indeed the word Covenant frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone As it proceedeth from the death of the testator in natural moral-reputative being so it is called a testament And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor giving this benefit to the governed to promote the ends of government and obliging to duty thereby so it partaketh of the nature of a law The commonest Scripture name for this act is Gods Covenant or Promise and sometimes his gift which all signifie the same thing here It follows therefore that either by Gods taking Israel to be his people you mean some civil political action as a Covenant Promise or the like collation of the benefit and then you assert the thing which you deny or else you know not what you mean nor can make another know it without the discovery of the grossest absurdity And as for the other thing which is contained in Church-membership the professed duty of man to God it is most certain 1. That Gods Law obligeth us to that duty 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation and so to re-engage themselves 3. That this actual consent professed doth therefore double the obligation And thus by a mutual contract Covenant or consent whereof our part is first required by a law is the relation of Church-membership contracted Now to lay by and deny all this and give us the general naked name of taking for Gods people is meerly delusory seeing that taking means this which you exclude or it means nothing that is true and reasonable And therefore tell us better what it means As for the Texts you cite Deut. 4.34 Levit. 20.24 26. 1 King 8.53 Isai 43.1 In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people or took them for his own and founded the relation but the natural actions whereby he rescued them from the Aegyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use service and honour out of that land But I think sure they were his people and all their Infants were Church-members before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him 2. By local separation of their bodies from others It was the first that made them his people and Church-members and not the last the last was only a favourable dealing with them as his beloved The same I say to the other two Texts Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member What if an Aegyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelies and got with them through the Red Sea do you think he had been therefore a Church-member Suppose God had made no promise or covenant with Abraham or his seed but only taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and thence into Aegypt and thence into the Wilderness and thence into Canaan again Do you think this much had made them Church-members Then if the Turks conquer Greece or the Tartarians conquer China they are become Church-members because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least And I think it is past doubt that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom and the Israelites in Aegypt before they were brought out as truly as after As to Gen. 12.1 Acts 7.2 Nehem. 9.7 which you also cite as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began so I shall further enquire anon whether they contain any Covenant or promise So Exod. 19.4 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Aegypt did make Israel a Church or the Infants or any others members of it But only that by fulfilling a former promise in the deliverance of a people formerly his own he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies The same I say of Levit. 11.45 Neh. 1.10 I will not believe yet but that you believe your self that the Israelites and their Infants were as truly church-Church-members before as after their deliverance out of Aegypt And me-thinks the Texts you cite might put it out of doubt What if God say Hos 11.1 When Israel was a child I loved him and called my Son
he never gave right to it by promise 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes If besides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie God will save many in a neutral state why may he not saith the ungodly save me also for Infants once deserved punishment by original sin And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves he may do so by me 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know that die in Infancy And do all the promises to the seed of the faithful in the second Commandment and Exod. 34.7 and many another Text mean no such thing as they speak as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition but only I will save my elect And why might not this Covenant I will save my Elect be made with Cain or Cham or Judas as well as with Abraham 2. He saith Abrahams Infants were visible Church-members but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical Reply What a bare put off is that of a man that must say something Is it at all by the Covenant as Evangelical If yea we have our desire If not what meaneth barely but the nakedness of your ill cause 3. Then cometh next And if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk or will not know it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply See Reader some more of the mysterie Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house but Church-membership signified but houshold and civil promises Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult But we may yet mistake him For rather is not a negative It is Rather than Evangelical which is but a preference not a denial O for plain honesty in things divine SECT L. R. B. 2. THat the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Church-member that had Infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose Infants also were not Church-members Except only the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ And whether their Infants be Church-members I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one Infant of a Church-member in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Church-member except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Reply Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer save a cross challenge oft answered and the instance of Timothy To which I say that if Timothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were But his Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal SECT LI. R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that saith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But Infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereof If you say Infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Church-member as the child of a Noble man is of his Honours and title to his Inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediator or head of the Church in his Infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Reply Here is so little said that needs but this remarke that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly which being Accepted of God is to Church-membership as private Marriage to publick where publication is wanting But he denieth that Parents may dedicate them by Baptism But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature if he cannot confute it let him not strive and sin against nature SECT LII R. B. 2. THe law of nature bindeth all Parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Mr. T. Really Infant Baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is and so are kept in presumption c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism c. Reply This nearly concerneth our cause I once inclined to these thoughts my self But I am satisfied 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from personal serious Covenanting with God at age We tell our Children and all the adult that their Infant Covenanting by Parents will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves And that without as serious a faith and consent of
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
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
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
not receive them though we approve not of their way § 30. And were it in my power as a Pastor of the Church I would give satisfaction by such an answerable profession as this Though it be our judgement that Infants have ever been members of Gods visible Church since he had a Church and there were Infants in the world and do believe that Christ hath signified in the Gospel that it is his gracious will that they should still be so And that he that commanded Mat. 28.19 Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them would have his Ministers endeavour accordingly to do it and hath hereby made Baptism the regular orderly way of solemn entrance into a visible Church state and therefore we devote this child to God in the Baptismal Covenant Yet we do also hold that when he cometh to age it will be his duty as seriously and devoutly to make this Covenant with God understandingly himself and to dedicate himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as those must do that never were Baptized in Infancie And we promise to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity to instruct and perswade him so to do hoping that this his early Baptismal dedication and obligation to God will rather much prepare him for it than hinder it § 31. Me thinks these Professions should put off the chief matter of offence and exception against each other as to the ill consequents of our opinions And if sober good men would by such a mutual approach be the more disposed to live together in love and holy peace how easily should I bear the scorns of those Formalists that will reproach me for so much as motioning a Peace with the Anabaptists even in the same Communion Who by making it a reproach will but perswade me that such as they are less worthy of Christian Communion than sober pious and peaceable Anabaptists § 32. And if with the partial sort of themselves such motions of Peace be turned into matter of contempt and they proceed in their clamours and reviling of me as an enemy of the truth for being against their way I shall account it no wonder nor matter of much provocation finding in all Sects as well as theirs that the injudicious sort are apt to be abusively censorious and the more mens Pride Ignorance and uncharitableness remain the more they will swell into self-conceit and trouble the Church with a mistaking wrangling hurtful sort of zeal § 33. And as I must needs believe as ill of some sort of Zeal as St. James hath spoken of it Jam. 3. and experience hath too long told the world of it yet I take it for truly amiable in men that they have a love and Zeal for Truth in general and a hatred to that which they think to be against it and that their bitterness against the truth and me is upon a supposition that both are against the truth and God for this beareth them witness that they have a zeal of God though it be not according to Knowledge and if they knew truth indeed they would be zealous for it § 34. I conclude with this notice to the contrary minded that the evidence for Infants Church-membership seemeth to me so clear both in nature and in Scripture that I bid them despair of ever perswading me against it But if they will have any hope of changing my judgement it must be by confessing the visible Church-membership of Infants and proving that yet they are not to be baptized and that Baptism was appointed for initiating none but adult converts and not to be the common entrance into the Church which yet I think they can never do while the plain Law of Christ Mat. 29.19 and the exposition of the universal Church doth stand on record to confute such an opinion But here they have more room for a dispute § 35. But though I expect to be censured for it I will say once because truth is truth that though Rebaptizing and Reordaining are justly both condemned by the ancient Churches and pronounced alike ridiculous by Gregory Mag. Lib. 2. Ep. Indict 11. c. 46. and many others yet were men Rebaptized but for Certainty to themselves or to the Church and to quiet their consciences and on such terms as in my Christian Directory I have shewed that a seeming Reordination might in some cases be tolerated and would not wrong Infants nor make it an occasion of division or alienation I know not by any Scripture or reason that such Rebaptizing is so heinous a sin as should warrant us to contemn our brethren No though it were as faulty as the oft commemorative baptizing used by the Abassines CHAP. III. A General View of Mr. Danvers book § 1. MR. Danvers book is entitled a Treatise of Baptism in which he giveth us the History of Infant and Adult Baptism out of Antiquity as making it appear that Infant Baptism was not practised for 300 years in his second edit it is near 300. And in his Append ed. 2. I cannot find that it was practised upon any till the fourth Century And he giveth us a Catalogue of witnesses against it By which those that hold their Religion on the belief of such mens words will conclude that all this is true and that Infant Baptism is a Novelty and those that are against it do go the old and Catholick way § 2. Having perused his testimonies on both sides I am humbled and ashamed for the dulness of my heart that doth not with floods of compassionate tears lament the pittiful condition of the seduced that must be thus deceived in the dark and of the Churches of Christ that must be thus assaulted and shaken and distracted by such inhumane horrid means The book being composed in that part of history which the stress of the cause lyeth on of such UNTRUTHS in fact and history as I profess it one of my greatest difficulties to know how to call them Should I say that they are so notorious and shameless as that I say not only a Papist but any sober Turk or Pagan should blush to have been guilty but of some page or line◠of them and much more a man of any tenderness of conscience the Readers would think that the language were harsh were it never so true and some would say Let us have soft words and hard arguments And should I not tell the Reader the truth of the case I might help to betray him into too much fearlesness of his bait and snare and I doubt I may be guilty of untruth by concealing the quality of his untruths And it is not matter of Argument but fact that I am speaking of § 3. But it pleaseth that God whose counsels are unsearchable as to permit five parts of the Earth to remain yet strangers unto Christ so to permit his Church to be so tryed and distracted between Church Tyranny and dividing separations Sects and parties as that in many ages it hath not been easie to
thousand such should write a Cart-load of Calumnies as you have done I think they would break but little of my sleep Set these arguments next before hypocrites that live on man I live not on them But your words do mind me how men that are embodyed in little parties far less than the Donatists or Novatians are inclined to take their Cabin for all the Kingdom and their Sect for the Church and are affected with their praise or dispraise almost as if they were all the world You hear your folks it seems talk against me with whom backbiting is a duty and you seem to dream that it is all my friends If God in Christ will be my friend I can spare others And tell me Sir for what prize or gain do you think I am lost with all my friends No man in his wits will voluntarily be lost for nothing Do you think it is to get other friends that I more value Who be they Is it the Papists Enquire what I get by them Is it the Diocesan party What have I got by them but silencing and the loss of all Ministerial maintenance these twelve years And ask them whose writings have more offended them yours or mine If I am lost it hath â—ost me more years hard study to be lost and to be erroneous or a fool than it hath done you to be some body and to be wise And I tell you I never yet repented of Cost or loss for that Truth and duty which you lament as heinous error and sin But naked truth and the faithful endeavours of pleasing God in promoting that Love among Christs disciples and peace in his Churches which Church Tyrants and Sects have so many ages laboured too succesfully to destroy are sweeter than to be forsaken either through the persecution of one sort or the Revilings of the other or the loss of all mens friendship upon earth And yet I will add that though being long ago glutted with mens applause as finding it a luscious but unwholesome thing and having voluntarily cast up much of it my self I yet perceive no want of friends but take your words of them for meer slanders § 13. Saith Mr. D. Pref. ed. 1. He hath so much abounded in contradictions none more that I know of being as you 'l find sometime a great opposer then a great defender of Episcopacy Answ 1. Yet I know not that ever this man saw me as I said or I him 2. This falshood did unhappily overslip him my writing being so full a confutation of it that he can have nothing of sense to say to cloak it My judgement was for Episcopacy 1639. by Reading Bishop Downame and some others But in 1640. the oath called Et caetera calling us to swear never to consent to the alteration of the present Government by A. Bishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons c. forced me to study the whole cause to the bottom since which time my judgement of Episcopacy never altered which is 34 years ago having setled in the Receptibility of one sort of Episcopacy and the desirableness of another and the dislike of another sort All which I have fully published in my Dispute of Church-Government 1658. when the Bishops here were at the lowest Either this man knew me and my writings herein or not If not what a man is this that dare talk thus confidently and falsly of what he knew not If he did then how much more flagitious is his practice thus to tell the world an untruth so notorious to himself He saith as you may find but never tells you where Let him tell you where and when I ever defended that Episcopacy which I had opposed § 14. Mr. D. Sometime for Nonconformity in whose tents he hath seemed to shelter himself in the storm and with their Indulgence to come forth of his hole and yet at length so highly to disgrace the same Answ 1. Let him shew you if he can where or when I have changed my judgement about Conformity or exprest a change since 1640 Not that I take it for a disgrace to be mutable by growing wiser But necessity forced me so long ago to study those controversies so hard as fixed me and I never heard any thing since which considerably altered me therein Which also being visible in the foresaid Dispute of Liturgie Ceremonies c. written 1658. leave no cloak for this mans calumnies See there whether I said not more for so much of Episcopacy Liturgie and Ceremonies which I took to be lawful than ever I have done since Bishops returned 2. But what doth he mean by sheltering my self in a storm in their tents I cannot imagine what unless sense and truth at once forsook him When a storm fell on the Nonconformists were their tents a likely place for shelter Had not the Conformists tents been likelier Did the Nonconformists shelter me From what and how 3. And what hole was it that I came out of with their Indulgence Are such men as this the Vindicators of Gods Truth against the Christian world that pour out untruths at such a rate in despight of the most publick notoriety of fact Do I need to tell the Reader only for the sake of youths and forreigners that when the Nonconformists cause was at the bar when speaking had any room and hope they set me in their forlorn and engaged me with my Conscience and desire to have prevented that which I foresaw in the tasks of writing and speaking which would most exasperate and offend the Bishops till I was I think the first among them that was forbidden to Preach I continued after that in London a year where I never had place or flock but was a stranger sickness then forced me to remove into the Countrey The Tents I was sheltered in were Gods protection in my own habitation which if a hole I thought good enough for me I Preacht to such as would hear me till being near the Church door and the people numerous Clergie-envy caused me to be sent to the common Gaol among malefactors As soon as I was out another warrant was put into the Officers hands to apprehend me again and send me to Newgate for six months Upon which I removed my dwelling to the next Village out of the County I refused none there that desired to hear me of my Neighbours The writings which he revileth shew that I lived not idle And I think he could wish I had done less and spoken to fewer I came not out of that hole of many months after the Indulgence was granted I stayed on reasons of Self-denyal because I would fore-stall no London Ministers nor hinder their Auditories and therefore resolved to stay till they were setled I came on terms of far greater Self-denyal to the great abatement of my health to say nothing of my greater cost which now hath again forced me at present to retire You see now at what rate these men inform the world and how far they are to