Rich. BAXTER'S REVIEW OF THE STATE OF Christian's Infants Whether they should be entered in COVENANT With God by BAPTISM and be Visible Members of His CHVRCH and have any Covenant-Right to Pardon and Salvation Or whether CHRIST the Saviour of the World hath shut all Mankind out of his Visible Kingdom and Covenant-Rights and Hopes 'till they come to Age And whether he did so from the beginning of the world or after his Incarnation Occasioned by the Importunity of Mr. E. Hutchinson and of Mr. Danvers and Mr. Tombes who called him to this REVIEW in order to his RETRACTATION An Impartial Reading is humbly requested of those Dissenters who would not be found Despisers of holy Truth nor such as judge before they hear London Printed for Nevil Simons at the Princes Arms in Pauls Churchyard 1676. READER I Once more stew the World that is is in the power of other men if God permit them to hinder us from greater service to the Church by making things far less in themselves to become accidentally at that time more necessary By which kind of Impediments in Contentious times Satan frustrateth the better desires and designs of many of the Servants of Christ who would fain be better employed yea and useth herein the service of such men as in other respects are none of his Servants And thus though Scriptures be our General Rule the Providence of God and the great Ends of all our life are the Determiners of the Circumstances of our Duties The Cause of this REVIEW is a Letter of one Mr. E. Hutchinson sent me very large in considerable Oratory to let me know his Contempt of my last and former Book of Baptism and to humble me for the great sin of abusing the world with such frivolous writings which seem to do something but prove nothing and leave Mr. Danvers c. unanswered so that it is an Answer that he would have And he vehemently urgeth me to Repentance and Retraction of what I have written for Infants Church-membership Covenant and Baptism as did Mr. Tombes more than once before him Should I Print his Letter without his consent perhaps he might take it for an injury and if he would have it done it 's like he will do it himself But because it refereth to a Printed Paper of Mr. Danvers against me called his Third Reply which I never saw till his Letter informed me of it I thought that it was more than himself whom he importuned me to satisfie I have told him here truly how little the meer difference about the outward Baptism of Infants doth abate my esteem and love of any Godly Peaceable men Two sorts of Persons called Anabaptists I can live in as friendly concord with as with most I hold Communion with First those that deny not the Covenant-Rights and Church-Relation of the Infants of Believers confessing them to be Holy but only think that their Baptism being but the solemnization of their foregoing Covenant and the publick Investiture of them in their Relation may as the Coronation of an Infant King be deferred till they come to some understanding of which minde were Tertullian and Nazianzene Secondly those that being in doubt only of the Sufficiency or Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism do receive a second or a third Administration as some Marryed by Justices lately were marryed again by Ministers and as Mr. Humphrey pleads for a second Ordination especially if Hypothetically done to satisfie their doubting Consciences and then live in peace and orderly Communion afterwards with other Christians as knowing that in Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth nor Uncircumsion but a new Creature I say none of these shall be more willing of loving Communion with others than I shall be with them But 1. If men will deny and scorn our Infant-Right in the Covenant of Grace and in Christ Pardon and Salvation and Visible Church-Relation and will so far deny the Kingdom and Grace of Christ as to maintain that he excludeth all mankind from any Visible Right or Hope of Salvation till Adult and hath given such Right no more to Christian 's Children than to Heathens And if they will make this Opinion the measure of their Communion and will divide the Church and Unchristen or Unchurch all that are not as unthankful and injurious to Christ and to the Holy Seed as themselves it is not I that separate from these men but they from me and all sober Christians And I will here add but these two or three Notes to the Reader 1. If he will peruse two short Disputations which I have lately published of ORIGINAL SIN the Primary and Secondary he will see it fully proved that both Naturally and by Supernatural Revelation God hath declared such an Interest of Parents and Children in each other as is much of the Reason of all that I here plead for And he that will accurately observe the whole current of the Scripture herein shall find this Conjunct-Interest asserted from end to end 2. I am past doubt that it is a principal design of Satan to mortifie our Christendom it self by keeping Parents from that intelligent and serious Covenanting with God in their solemn dedication of their Children to him which the greatness of the work and case requireth and to turn our very Christening into a Ceremony or lifeless Formality And it is not the least part of my Non-conformity that I dare not deliberately profess my Assent and Consent that no Parent shall be suffered in the Church to enter his own Child into the Covenant of God nor to speak one Covenanting Promising Undertaking nor Dedicating word nor must be urged to be so much as present But that Godfathers and Godmothers who never give us any cause to believe that one of many thousands of them take the Child for their own nor ever purpose to Educate him or do what there they Vow and Covenant to do must be the only Covenanting Undertakers and so that so much notorious false Vowing to God or Perfidiousness must defile our Baptism And now come these Anabaptists and instead of calling the Parents to Seriousness and Holy Fidelity in so great a work they tell them that it is none of their Duty at all 3. And how light soever some make of Unity I know that it 's even Essential to the Church As the Union of the Stones and Timber is to the House and of King and Subjects to the Kingdom and of the several parts to a Clock or Watch For the Form is Relative And do you think then that they befriend Christ or his Church who turn the Sacrament of our Union into the occasion of our great Division yea and Unchristen and Unchurch all the Christian World in Infancy yea and a thousand parts to one of the Christian Church of the Adult because they are not Re-baptised at Age. Passion and Prejudice and Partiality when men have espoused the Interest of a Cause as the best and holyest in their eyes may make men
now they are holy Nor in that one text to expound Sanctifying for Lawful Marriage and Holyness for Legitimation when the words are never so taken else in the Bible and ma-many hundred times in another sense nor to say that all Pagans Children are holy if they be not Bastards I am satisfied that man must not teach God how to speak but carefully enquire what he hath spoken And if but one Text of Scripture acquaint us directly or consequentially of his mind we must be faithful in observing it I believe that these are your thoughts as well as mine and that you verily think that you hold close to the Scripture and that I depart from it But as I am as willing to understand it as you are and at as hard a rate of cost or labour so I well know that one mistake once deeply received doth let in abundance more and fights against all the light that would detect and shame it And he that once accounteth Falshood to be Truth will account the Defenders of Truth to be its Enemies Otherwise how could you and such others bring your Consciences to wrest and wrangle against such abundance of plain Scripture Texts Were it but this one what could be plainer What is wresting Scripture if this be not to force a sense of Holyness and Sanctification upon one Text which is never found else in any Text and the contary or different sense neer six hundred times is this impartial dealing with Gods word And do you think that Paul mentioneth that as a great and comfortable priviledge of Believers which belongs to Heathens equally with them Why do you not your selves still use that language then and say that the Children of Infidels are holy when too many will scarce allow the title to any Adult Christians that are not of your Sect much less to the Children of Christians though dedicated by Baptism to God But being called by you to a Review I am again remembred that our Saviour himself was a Church member in his Infancy even the chiefest that is the Head Mr. Tombes confesseth it Let not your opinions interest draw you to deny it nor to call my assertion rotten dictating If you should I would ask of you at what age Christ began to be Christ and the Churches Head as we ask the Socinians At what age he began to be God And if an Infant was capable of being the Head King Priest and Prophet Relatively though yet he had never Ruled Sacrificed or Taught then there is nothing in the Infant Age which maketh it uncapable of being Members Subjects and Disciples of Christ And it is like that Irenaeus was not deceived who saith that he Sanctified the state of Infancy by being an Infant and we have reason to judge that he did thereby give us notice that the Infant Age is not unacceptable to him nor uncapable of Church Relation Truly Sir the serious thought of Christs Infant Relation is a very great confirmation of me against those that exclude all mankind in their Infancy from the Covenant and Church even as Christs ordinary Communion in the Synagogues and Temple is an insuperable argument with me against unlawful Separations And God himself calling Infants his Servants who do no actual service Levit. 25. 41 42. yea and calling them Disciples Acts 15. 10. prevaileth more with me than the words of any one that shall say They are uncapable of being Servants or Disciples If the Infant-age did not render them uncapable of being Subjects of Christs Kingdom and Members of his Church Universal and Particular before Christs Incarnation it maketh them not since uncapable of the like or same Relations And why should I suspect such incapacity are not Infants members of other Societies are they not members of Families and may not a Family be Sanctified by dedication to God are they not members of all the Kingdoms in the world and is it not the common light of Nature which teacheth all men so to esteem them are not Infants the Kings Subjects and why may they not as well be Christs Subjects as the Kings Have they not Right of Inheritance and Honour even of Crowns Lordships and Lands Do any Nations under Heaven level all Children as if the Parents communicated neither good or evil to them What reason then to suppose that Christ obliterateth even Natures Laws And if you deny not Original Sin why should you think that God is so unproportionably prone to punish and damn more than to pardon and save as that while all Infants are made sinful and miserable by their Parents yet not one in the world shall have so much as a part in Christs meritorious Righteousness and the free grace and pardon of his Covenant upon the Parents dedication of him to God and entering him by consent into his Covenant Doth sin abound so much more than Grace as that Condemnation is passed upon all Infants for and by their Parents sin and the free Covenant gift doth not pardon any sin to any one Infant in the world upon any condition which the Parent can perform nor any other You never yet by all your words for all words are not Light and Proof did convince me that it was no Benefit to Infants before Christs Incarnation to be Covenant-members of his Church particular and Universal Nor that Christ came to deprive them all of that benefit Mr. Tombes his pretenses that it is a Benefit to Christians to have all their Infants put or kept out of the Church State and Mercies is so absurd against Nature that I am asham'd to say any more against it If it be our Benefit to have no Covenant-gift of Christ Pardon and Life to our Children may you not next say It is our Benefit to have them damn'd And if it were so Nature teacheth us to be loath to receive our Benefits by such means as one would be loath that a Physitian should cure his Sickness by a draught of the heart blood of all his Children Sir I could the easilyer bear with your delay of external Baptism if you did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of Life But when you dare not only do that but reproach our assertion of Gods Covenant-Grace to them as Absurd and Heretical it is no Fieryness to say that I will not follow you Where there is no Covenant or Promise there is no Hope which we can call Divine and if we have no Hope of the Pardon or Salvation of our Children upon any Promise of God it is no Promise of Mans that can keep us from Despair We may not then say as David I shall go to it any farther than to the Grave Nay do you not do worse than deprive us of our hopes even lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation For God addeth to the Church such as shall be saved And if Infants be not added to the Church are they not excluded from Salvation For
Christ washeth and sanctifieth his Church he is the Saviour of his Body only And if they are not of his Church or Body he washeth them not nor is their Saviour effectively The same Text that saith He that believeth shall be saved saith He that believeth not shall be damned And He that believeth not is condemned already If therefore you allow them no participation in their Parents Faith but require personal Belief of them as necessary to their Salvation according to the Promise you must also require the same of them to save them from Damnation by the Threatning Did you but leave Christians no more hope than you do Pagans and Turks of their Childrens Pardon and Salvation I would not be ambitious of the Joy of your opinion much less if you positively condemn them And what do you less if finding them condemned by the violated Covenant of Innocency you totally exclude them from the Remedying Pardoning and Saving Covenant and from Christs Body which he doth save If you say that they may be of his invisible Church which is the saved Body I answer 1. What they may be tells us not what they are If they be not so much as visible Members who can say that they are invisible ones 2. They are by Nature visible Members of the Kingdom of Satan and Children of wrath and visibly under the Laws Condemnation Therefore 'till we can prove them visibly by grace translated out of this state of nature their visible Condemnation cannot be denyed And what a jumble make you if you make a great part of Mankind to be at once condemned visible members of the Kingdom of the Devil and invisible saved members of Christ Men may be visibly Christians Hypocrites and yet invisibly wicked but to be visibly condemned members of the Kingdome of Darkness and yet invisible members of Christ is strange to me especially considering that Hypocrites are visibly what they are not really and invisibly because they falsely profess what they have not But a condemned Infant doth not deceive men by dissembling but we actually know that as a child of Adam he is a child of sin and death It is truly so Therefore we must conclude that as Gods Word is true he continueth so till he be delivered by Grace And the Covenant of Grace is the Conveyance of and title to our gracious priviledges as the threatning is of wrath Shall not all that are judged be judged by Gods Law the Law which they were under And what Law shall Infants then be judged by If they are under no Covenant of Promise that giveth them title to life how can they have title by it or be judged by it Are they Justified or not Justified If not Justified they are condemned certainly and shall not be glorified for it is the Justified that are glorified Rom. 8. 30. But if they are Justified either it is by some Justifying Promise and Covenant or without If without 1. Do you not give hope also to all Heathens and Wicked men that though they are condemned by the Law of Innocency and not justified by any Covenant of Grace yet they may be justified without 2. And by what means is it by any or none If by any by what If by none how know you it But if it be by any Covenant-Grant that they are justified it must be by that of Grace which I am pleading for or none For we will not now receive another Gospel To talk therefore of meer Election is nothing to any of this that I have said Election Justifieth not nor dissolveth the condemning Sentence of the Law God judgeth not men meerly on the grounds of his unreveled Election but by his Word which is the Rule And were it otherwise if unrevealed none can prove it and therefore must not affirm it And were it reveled that God will save some that he promiseth not to save nor giveth them any antecedent right to it yet 1. No man could know by this whether any one in England or Europe or in the World in his age shall so be saved nor whether it be many or few or more than a dozen in the world 2. And no one can know who any of these be and so can have no notice of comfort for any of his own 3. Nor that Christians Infants shall be saved any more than the Heathens These things Sir are not to be submitted to by all Christians for fear lest you else revile them or lest Mr. T. sayes Their blood be on their own heads Austin is called Durus Pater Infantum for too sharp a censure on the unbaptized though many mistake him But we should be harder did we leave all visibly condemned without a pardoning word or any visible remedy and hope And truly me thinks you too much honour the Kingdome of the Devil if you make it visibly contain all the Seed of the Woman even of the Faithful till they come to age It is too great I will not feign it to be greater Were all the Circumcised Israelites and all the holy seed till Christ at once both in the Church and in Satans Kingdom If not sure it is not so now Sure I am that the Scripture tells us of a larger Church and a better Covenant and Promises and greater Salvation under the Gospel and do you bring it down to this to give us all up to the Devils visible Kingdom without any visible Remedy till we come to age And he is scarce so like to prove a member of Christ at age who is trained up in the Kingdom of the Devil till then as he is that is educated in the Houshold of God There is more of Gods blessing to be expected in his own Family than in the Devils Either it is a Mercy or no Mercy to be in Christs Family or Church if none why do you value it if it be why should we think that the Saviour of the world procureth it to no Infants nay that he came to leave them out Would you not take it for a Mercy if you believed that God in Scripture gave it to all the Seed of the Faithful dedicated to him I think you would For my part I believe that the Seed of the Righteous is blessed Psal 37. 26. and that the Children of Satan and the condemned unjustified seed are not blessed That blessed are they whose sins and iniquities are forgiven and covered and to whom the Lord imputeth not sin and that this blessing cometh even on the uncircumcised But not on them who are unpardoned and condemned already I hear many sad Mothers lamenting their dead Children for fear lest they are damned And though I never was a Father I can perceive what the concerns and bowels of Parents are But what would they do if they were taught to believe that no Infant ever in the world had any justifying pardoning Promise nor visible Remedy but all till age are under condemnation by the undissolved Obligation of the Law
on supposition of the Parents fidelity it had done though still at age they may be accepted upon Repentance and personal Belief Of which Mr. Whiston hath written more judiciously than any on that point that I remember Also I have been hereby made thankful that God kept me from the snare of Anabaptistry for though I lay not so much as some do on the meer outward act or water of Baptism believing that our heart consent and dedication qualifieth Infants for a Covenant Right before actual Baptism which yet is Christs regular solemnization and investiture yet I make a great matter of the main Controversie notwithstanding that I hereticate not the Anabaptists for the bare opinion sake nor would have them persecuted for now I better see than ever what God hath thus preserved me from 1. How much else might I have been led to that tendeth towards the denying the Kingdom of Christ and denying him to be the Saviour of the world yea how neer might I have been led towards the making him to be the Destroyer or Abaddon as comeing into the World to condemn the world and to take from them the Promises and Hopes of Salvation For 1. I find that all are lost in Adam and that God made an Vniversal Covenant of Grace with fallen mankind in Adam after his fall and renewed it with Noah I find that it is but a small part of the world that had the Law of Moses the Jews being to the earth but as one Village to England and to be King but of a Village is not to be King of England I find that the making of Abraham's or Moses his Covenant was no repeal of the Vniversal Law of Grace nor put them into a worse condition than he found them in And I find that past all doubt Infants were Church-members and in the Covenant before Christs Incarnation not only the Circumcised but the Uncircumcised Females and all the Uncircumcised Males in the Wilderness yea and out of the Jewish Nation as well as in it though the Covenant of Peculiarity was proper to them And yet notwithstanding all this I find 1. that many now do exclude all the world out of Christs Kingdom before his Incarnation except the Jews or at least a few rare individuals more when Abraham hoped there had been fifty Righteous in Sodome 2. That the same men suppose that since Christs Incarnation the old Law of Grace made to mankind in Adam and Noah is repealed and they that cannot have the Gospel are left under the meer Law of Innocency or none 3. And that all mankind in their Infant state is put or left out of the Church of Christ and the Covenant of Life And had I been seduced into all this 1. To hold that for 4000 years Christ had a Kingdom no bigger than England 2. That he came to deprive all the world that have not his Gospel of the former Law of Grace that was made to them 3. And that he came to cast out of their Church-state or Covenant-mercies all mankind while they are Infants and to leave us no hope that is grounded on his Covenant or Promise of any Infants Salvation or any description or condition whatsoever Alas what should I have been led to and what guilt against Christ and of furthering Infidelity should I have incurred under the pretense of promoting the purity of his Kingdom II. And if God had thus left me I had been likely as I see by others to have gone yet farther and narrowed the Gospel Church it self so much as to have confined it to the Anabaptists or to have thought all the rest of the Christian world uncapable of Church Communion I might have come to revile the Doctrine of Gods gracious Promise or Covenant to our Children as Absurd and Heretical and when Gratitude is the complexion of Gospel obedience this Ingratitude might have been mine III. And then I should likely have been left to a proud over-valuing of my own Opinion and the singularity of my Wisdom and Integrity as quite beyond all the Christian worlds that differ from me And out of a selfish unobserved adherence to my own conceits to have magnified the Sect that was of my own mind above all others IV. And then I might have been seduced to have had a hand in all the Turnings and Overturnings setting up and pulling down Praying and Unpraying Owning and Disowning Bloody dayes and Thanksgivings for them that were since Triplo Heaths-Parliament till 1660. and more than so to have justified them in others yea and that after Gods most remarkable disowning them yea and to have abhorred and derided the very name and motion of Repentance for them and to have despised the Religious Retreat of Nath. Ward a wise though jocular Interpendent though Repentance be the only Plank after Shipwrack and the great and merciful concession of the Gospel V. I might have been drawn hereby to divide Christs Kingdom and to set up Antichurches whose employment should be to cry down others and draw men into odious thoughts of one another and to destroy Christian Love and Concord in the world VI. And hereby I might have been one that prepared Professors to turn Quakers Seekers or Ranters to have finished the work that I began VII I might have been tempted to do all this as in the Name of Christ and for his Truth Word and Church and so to have entitled God to all and put his holy Name to these works of Darkness and pretended his own Commission for my opposing him VIII I might have been tempted hereby to write Letters as long and vehement as yours in as orâ—â—â—cal and pious a strain which should have been bâ—â—… birth of my ignorance and self-conceit and made â—… of Hypocrisie all along pretending that I am offended with my Adversary for want of an Answer or proof when indeed it were the success of his Answers Cogent Proofs prevailing with multitudes against my Opinion that was the true cause of my anger and when partiality had filled my heart with bitterness against my Brother for such success I might have been drawn to cover all from my self and others by accusing him of fieryness or folly in generals and by summoning him to Repentance and Recantation as the Quakers do by the dreadful Tribunal of God when I cannot resist the Scripture evidence which he bringeth IX And I might have been tempted when once Prepossession Prejudice Interest of Reputation had engaged me to so bad a cause to have studyed all that I can rake together to maintain it and to have stretch'd all my wits to have opposed all that is brought against it and to have made it the chief work and Religion of my life in which my thoughts affections time and industry should be laid out to carry on this mistaken and destructive cause and to keep the Churches of Christ from Loving-Unity Communion and Peace till they will all unite against Infants Church-membership and Baptism
The Antinomians of late years have attempted to perswade men that secret Election justifieth from Eternity and dissolveth the Laws Obligation before it did oblige even to non-existent Subjects But few believe them the Errour being sufficiently laid open And yet what other than this feigned Antinomian Justification do the Anabaptists allow to any Infants in the world But the Obligation of a Law or Covenant to punishment must according to Gods established order be dissolved by a Law or Covenant even by the Pardoning Law of Grace No doubt but all elect persons before Regeneration are in the visible Kingdom of the Devil and heirs of hell and under the condemnation of the Law as undissolved and they not pardoned and is this the case of the best of Infants Had Infants Church-membership been a meer Jewish Ceremony or a meer piece of the Mosaical Policie giving no right to any spiritual benefits nor extended to any other but the Jews we should have judged of it as of the rest But I dare say that I have given full proof of the contrary in both my Books not here to be recited and have produced more than rotten dictates that from Adams dayes Infants were esteemed as under the Blessing or the Curse as belonging to their Parents interested in their actions conditions Besides that any heathen might have brought in his children as Proselites into Church-membership with the Jews whereas now you allow not so much to any Christians And it was before Circumcision was instituted that Marriage was regulated by God that there might be a Seed of God Mal. 2. 15. And I will not be so audocious as to expound that title of all the Devils Children that be not Bastards But still you say There is no Scripture President or Precept for Infants Baptism Answer 1. Abuse not your selves and others we are first to agree Whether Infants may be Church members and under the Covenant of Grace with their Parents And then we shall next consider at what age and in what manner they should be solemnly invested Confound not differing Questions the first must be first resolved 2. There is no Scripture president for Baptizing any Kings must none therefore be Baptized 3. Scripture tells us not all that was then done but all that must be done 4. When Baptism was first instituted and practised the Parents must first be Converted and Baptized 5. Yet over and over the Baptizing of Housholds is recorded 6. Infants Church-membership was a thing that they were before in profession of and no sort that ever I read of questioned it Therefore what need Christ institute it anew any more than to new make the Ten Commandments 7. If it had ever been his meaning to dispossess them all he would have told us so in some word of Scripture or some mention sure had been made of it 8. But certainly he told them that he would have gathered Jerusalems Children to him which is the Nation that was before Gods Church 9. And he took Children in his arms and blessed them and was angry with those that kept them from him and said Of such is the Kingdom of God 10. And how can we obey Mark 9. 36 37. and receive Children in Christs name and as belonging to Christ if none do visibly belong to him 2. But I answer fully There is a full Command for Infant Baptism Mat. 28. 19. Go ye Disciple me all Nations Baptizing them Where note 1. That it is not the effect that is made their duty but their endeavour else the Apostles had sinned when the hearers believed not and because all Nations were not Discipled Note that to be Disciples and to be Christians Acts 11. are made all one and to be Discipled and to be Christened 3. Note that it is not here and there one but Nations that they must endeavour to Disciple And as the Jews are called a holy Nation so it is said I will give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance Psal 2. and Isa 55. 8. Mal. 1. 10 11 c. the Conversion of the Nations and Heathens is promised and the Word and our Experience have both said The Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ But Kingdoms and Nations contain Infants and he Discipleth not a Nation that Discipleth no Infants in the Nation The Apostles were commanded to Discple whole Nations the Infants are parts of whole Nations therefore the Apostles were bound to endeavour to Disciple Infants Object It is only the capable parts but Infants and Ideots are not capable parts Answ I have before and else-where fully proved Infants capable parts as Christ was of being Head and as Infants are of Societies and of a part in Covenants with men and Ideots having not the use of reason from the birth are in the same case with Infants and the Distracted after at age are nothing to our case but are capable of being Distracted members and Distraction is not Excommunication nor Unchurcheth any Object 2. They must be made Disciples by Teaching Answ 1. If they be made Disciples any way they must be Baptized 2. As a mans hand or foot doth not understand by teaching and yet is part of a Disciple that 's made such by teaching so Infants understand not and yet are Infant Disciples as being naturally so much appertaining to their Parents that by Gods Law the Parents Will goeth for theirs in consenting for their good They are Subjects before they obey and servants of God before they serve him as those were to Abraham that were born to him in his house and as Christ was a Priest before he Sacrificed c. And so they are Disciples before they learn and made such by thes teaching which made their Parents such and taught them to dedicate them to God If the King should send Embassadours to perswade the Heathens in New England at once to become Christians and his Subjects would any man doubt but when the Embassadours prevail with all the Adult to become the Kings Subjects they do thereby make the Nations and so all Infants as dependents on the Parents to be Subjects also And if the same speech of the same men make the Parents both Christians and the Kings Subjects may it not as truly be said that that speech made the Infants Christians when the Parents consent as Subjects when they consent 3. If actual Learning or believing were necessary to the Christianity or Church-membership of all then whenever any one were Mad or Distracted or in an Appoplexy if not every night while he is asleep he should cease to be a Christian and Church-member And if Infants as part of Nations must be made Disciples and all that are Discipled be Baptized as the Investing act then here is a plain cmmand to Baptize Infants All that must be Discipled must be Baptized Infants must be Discipled Therefore Infants must be Baptized What have you more for Baptizing Kings And if men ask for
that Infants Baptized none in the world excepted and dying before actual sin are certainly Saved not allowing us to preach Christs Gospel if we cannot say that all This is certain were it Faith in Christ himself the weak in Faith should be received and such as you on the other side that account us even Heretical if we will not be so unthankful to God as to deny and reject the precious Covenant Hopes and Church-relation of our Children You know that with what measure you mete it is measured to you again by many and that no small number of Christians have numbred Anabaptists with Hereticks and yet I that have dealt otherwise with you am your most fiery Adversary And why Any judicious By-stander may see though you cannot just as as W. Pen lately seemed to think more favourably of me than of others till in an open dispute I had detected the evil of his cause and then he had rather be a Socrates at judgment than such a nominal Christian as I so you and your Brethren that are like you because a Book or two of mine have cross'd the Interest of your Party think I deserve all that you pronounce of or against me so powerful is Interest with most mens understandings so far as it is your mistake of the Interest of Christ that does mislead you I easily bear it as the infirmity of a weak and prejudiced judgment But so far as it is the interest of your Party which is abused against the publick interest of Christs Church it is selfish and such as is described at large in James 3. As for your talk of Mr. Danvers his words against my Heterodoxes in other matters and your supercilious insulting as if he were unanswered I say 1. I take him to be fully answered and if you do not that proveth it not to be as you affirm 2. What more should I answer What doth he but recite some scrap of my words Had he done it truly and fully had that been any Argument against them Do I need to answer my own words before any Charge against them be proved or proof once attempted Was it not enough for me to lay down the Contraries to my Doctrines and leave the Reader to choose which he seeth best Dare you not own the Contraries and yet continue your accusation of my words Would not the World whom I blame not if they think that I have written too many Books already condemn me for a fool indeed if in the condition that I am in the Cant of such men as he and you should draw me to write another Volumn in Defence of a Volumn that defendeth it self to all judicious Impartial Readers and that against one that proveth nothing in it to be Erronious And as for those that will not impartially peruse the words accused I have no reason to think that they will make any better use of a Defence if I should write it And as I am past doubt that Mr. D's Quarrels and your Justification of them are the effect of meer ignorance self-conceit partiality and passion so if you prove to be the knowing men and I the ignorant I am sure it is not through my neglect of Study nor unwillingness to know or own the Truth And I have no cause to envy you the felicity of your greater Wisdom But if it be a Wisdom that tendeth to bitter strife and to confusion and destroyeth your Love to those that differ from you I will remember that my peace lyeth more on my Love to you than on yours or any mans else to me As for your talk about my words in my first book that some did then Baptize naked I have given you a true answer To contradict what I said were to lie I know not that you Baptize any at all but by report of others and so I heard that then of some so credibly as that I am not able now because you call for proof almost thirty years after to disbelieve it I undertake not to prove it now nor that the Quakers then used to Quake or Vomit seeing now no such thing is seen among them If really it was a misreport and never any Baptized naked in England nor in other Lands I wish that no man may believe it But did Mr. Danvers take this for so heynous an injury and yet himself in2 Books labour to prove that for many hundred years Baptizing naked was the ordinary Custome O how far will partiality blind men Was it the Custome of all the Churches and yet a Reproach to be retracted to say that at one time divers did so if fame not then denyed by any of those Anabaptists that I converst with may be believed To conclude Sir The importunity of Mr. Danvers and you have not been unprofitable to me It hath caused me as you desired to Review my old thoughts of Infants Church-membership and Baptism and to renew my thanks to the God of Mercy who hath not left all the World in their Infancy unredeemed nor without a Promise or Covenant of Grace nor left Christian Parents to mourn for their dead Infants as those that are without hope of their Salvation and have no Promise on which to ground their hope It hath renewed my sense of the great obligation that lyeth on believing Parents both of gratitude to God and duty for their Children It tells me that they may now love their Children as the members of the Church of Christ and need not nay must not take them as members of the Kingdom of the Devil nor yet stretch their Brains to prove that there is a middle Region like Purgatory or Limbus Infantum hereafter between the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of the Devil And that it is a sad employment for Parents to dispute their own Children out of the Blessings of Gods Covenant and to prove them to be in Satans Kingdom and not in Christs Yea it hath reminded me how much the Interest of Infants in their Parents case is founded by God in nature it self and to bless God for that inscription in Stone of the second Commandment and that marvellous voice from Heaven Exod. 34. 6 7. I believe that the Synod of Dort said truly Acts 1. 17. That Faithful Parents need not doubt of the Election and Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy before the violation of the Baptismal Covenant And seeing God hath pronounced our Children holy and not unclean and told us that of such is the Kingdom of God it remindeth me how careful Parents should be as thankfully to dedicate them to God so carefully to educate them according to their Covenant remembering that as the Parents Consent and dedication of them to God is the Condition of their first right to the Covenant benefits so those Parents do Promise their pious education and if they after prove false in such Promises on their part they must not charge God with unfaithfulness if it go worse with their Children than