devote himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the Baptismal Covenant and solemnly profess himself a Christian that man were a true member of the visible Church though defective as to the mode of entrance and were to be numbered with Christians And Constantine and many another were called Christians long before they were baptized And it were injurious to the Rationality and spirituality of Christs Covenant to feign him to be so ceremonious as to reject a sound professing believer for want of water § 23. Though Augustine be called durus pater Infantum and be supposed for some passages by many Papists and others to damn all unbaptized persons save Martyrs yet these following words among others in his later times in his deliberate disputes against the Donatists fully shew his contrary judgement which yet I believe the Interest of his cause against the Donatists was a help to in this point And remember that he confirmeth it in his Retractations by retracting only the instance of the thief on the cross as uncertain whether he was baptized or not § 24. Aug de baptis cont Donat. li. 4. c. 29. Quod etiam atque etiam considerans invenio non tantum Passionem pro nomine Christi id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere sed etiam Fidem conversionemque Cordis si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest Et Cap. 24. Cum Ministerium baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articulus necessitatis excludit baptismus quidem potest inesse ubi conversio cordis defuerit Conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo sed contempto non potest neque enim ullo modo dicenda est conversio cordis ad Deum cum Dei sacramentum contemnitur Conversion then will save without baptism when baptism is not contemned It is the contempt that destroyeth and that as it proveth men unconverted And this he professeth to be his judgement after long and great consideration § 25. Baptism is to Christianity much like what Ordination is to the sacred Ministry and what solemn Matrimony is to Marriage It is necessary as a Duty and as a Means to our ordinary and regular admittance to the Communion of the Church But as in case there were no Ordainer to be had in a far Countrey in America no doubt but a qualified person might become a Pastor rather than God should have no Church nor be solemnly worshipped And as in case there could be no regular solemnization of Marriage as in such a wilderness a published consent may tie the knot so in case there could be no Baptizing a solemn Profession and Covenanting would serve to Gods acceptance and to a right to the Christian name § 26. I only leave it to Christian Charity and wisdom to consider how far some mens Education natural weakness of judgement and other impediments of information may make their error against Infant Baptism to participate of such a Necessity The case hath its difficulties Papists and Protestants confess it as to Scripture evidence Weak men cannot know all things And even considerable heads that have heard and thought of much against it which they cannot answer may grow very confident that they are in the right and after by that prejudice may become uncapable of what should satisfie them Abundance of the sons of the Church that talk most against them give such weak reasons for Infant Baptism and are so unable to confute an Anabaptist as sheweth that it is not More knowledge but somewhat else more inclining them to the truth therein that keepeth them right § 27. If the case were whether the Lords Supper might be Administred with Beer or Milk where there is no Wine Or whether Baptism might be Administred by Milk or Wine where there is no water suppose the affirming party were certainly in the right yet if the contrary minded should say I own Christs Sacrament and solemnly profess my consent to his Covenant and I would participate as you do but that I take it to be a sin and with all the means that I can use in conference reading meditation prayer my judgement is not changed I should not break such communion with such a man as he were capable and willing to hold with the Church And how near some Anabaptists case is to this I leave to consideration § 28. But making no question but many of them are far better men than I and knowing my self lyable to error and knowing how much Christ in his promises layeth upon sincerity of Faith and Love more than upon ceremony and having endeavoured to learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice As I am far more offended at their Schism or separation from Communion with our Churches than at their opinion so I will here lay down those terms on which I am perswaded good and sober men will be willing on both sides to agree and hold communion Or on which I am sure I would gladly live in brotherly love and communion with them my self § 29. Let the Anabaptists consent to and profess as followeth or to this sense Though we judge Infant Baptism dissonant from Christs instituted order yet finding that God hath made many promises to the seed of the faithful above others and that Christ expressed his readiness to receive little children when they were brought to him for his blessing and knowing that all Christian Parents should earnestly desire that their children may be the children of God through Christ and should devote them to him as far as is in their power and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this power and Christs promises we do here solemnly profess that we thankfully desire all those mercies for this child which God hath promised to such in his word and that we heartily offer devote and dedicate this child to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as far as he hath given us power to do it beseeching him accordingly to accept him And we promise faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and as we are able to perswade him when he is capable to believe in Christ and solemnly devote himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism Let this much be done in the Church or so openly as may satisfie the Church that they are not despisers of Gods mercies nor their childrens souls Much more would it tend to our quietness and concord if those that profess that they cannot satisfie their consciences in their Infant Baptism would but do as the Liturgie doth by those whose Baptism is uncertain If thou be not Baptized I Baptize thee and so would say Being uncertain whether my Infant Baptism be valid If it be not I now receive that which is And when they have satisfied their consciences would live quietly in the Love and communion of the Church Who would
in your Letter say I confess and you describe a promise conferring to Infants the benefit of Church-membership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring into Covenant which confers the benefit For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. and the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God and a precept of Circumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. and Deut. 29. Yet no such particular promise concerning Infants visible Church-membership or precept for Parents or others concerning the solemn admission of Infants as visible Church-members besides Circumcision as in your Book of Baptism you assert Nor do I conceive that Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the covenants or the precepts forenamed but by Gods transeunt fact which I have described Which I therefore term transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sence repealable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future though capable of continuance in the same or the like acts or of interruption Which continuance or interruption is known by narration of what God hath done not by any legal revocation or renewing or continuance of a promise or precept concerning that thing Now as the Church-membership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 so I conceive it ceased when upon their rejection of Christ as was fore-told Matth. 21.43 they were broken off from being Gods people which was compleated at the destruction of Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed as Christ fore-told Luke 19.43 44. And instead of the Jewish people by the preaching of the Gospel confirmed by mighty signs God gathered to himself a Church of another frame in a spiritual way according to the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 16. in which he included not Infants the Jews themselves were no part of the Christian Church without repentance and faith in Christ professed at least Having now fully exactly and plainly told you my meaning as you request I do now expect your speedy answer to my last and therein to fulfil my request of setting down the particular Texts of holy Scripture wherein that law largely taken comprehending promise and precept of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert to be unrepealed is contained If you shall in your answer set down wherein the blessing benefit and priviledges of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert unrepealed did consist I may better understand you than I do But I shall press you no further than you shall be willing in this thing I am Bewdley April 21. 1655. Yours as is meet John Tombes Richard Baxters third Letter being long is divided by Mr. Tombes into several sections and his Answers accordingly divided which order I must therefore observe in my reply The words of the Letter are SECT I. R. B. SIR A probability of doing or receiving good is to me a call to action Seeing no such probability I told you at first my purposes to forbear any further debates with you till you had better answered what is said In your next you seemed to deal so plainly as if some small probability of good did yet appear But in your third you fly off again and eat your own words and jumble things in much confusion so that I now return again to my former thoughts For you that expresly say and unsay and contradict your self are not likely to be brought to a candid management or fair issue of the Dispute You 'l sure think it no great matter to be driven to a self-contradiction which with others is to lose the Cause who so easily and expresly run upon it your self Mr. T 's Answer It was a call sufficient c. Reply I must be the discerner of my own Call or Reasons to write time is precious As for his offence at Mr. M. and Mr. Firmin for charging him with sophistry and at Mr. Ford for charging him with railing and Mr. Gataker for doubting it is his disposition to braze his forehead and his own angry words hereupon they concern not our present business SECT II. R. B. IN your second you say I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept then visible Church-members that is of the Congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing c. In your third you say For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God and a precept of Circumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people and requiring of them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Church-membership or precept for Parents or others concerning the solemn admission of Infants as visible Church-members besides Circumcision as in your book of Baptism you assert Before there was no Law or Ordinance determining it should be so but only a fact now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so but not such as I assert in my book And if I should shew you never so many you may reply they are not such as I assert in my book and waste the time in that trial when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book For this is but to lead us about to trifling Mr. T 's Answer There is no shadow of a contradiction c. Reply Let the impartial Reader judge SECT III. R. B. TO make any clear work upon the things in question we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly many of which you too much confound The first question in order fit to be resolved is whether Infants before Christs incarnation were Church-members or not you grant they were and therefore this is past dispute with us The second question and the first resolved is what Church it is that Infants were members of This you give me occasion to take in the way because you twice explain your meaning when you confess them Church-members by an i. e. of the congregation of Israel By which you seem to imply two things First that none but the Infants of the Congreation of Israel were Church-members Secondly that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel The third question is what it is that gives
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
B. THE second proposition to be proved is 〈…〉 Israelites children were 〈◊〉 of â—he uâ—â—versal visible Church of Christ as well â—s â—â— the Congregation of Israel But this you did heretofore acknowledge and therefore I suppose will not now deny I suppose it past controversie between us 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ Heb. 11.26 and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ and searched diligently and prophesied of the grace to come and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time and testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1.10 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ and members of the body of Christ and given for the edification of that body Though it was revealed to them that the higher priviledges of the Church after the coming of Christ were not for them but for us 1 Pet. 1.12.2 I suppose it agreed on also between us that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ and therefore either Infants were members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods institution Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two but one Church For Moses was ChristsVsher and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ And though the foolish Jews by mis-understanding them made a separation and made Moses Disciples to be separate from Christs Disciples and so set up the alone shadows of things to come yet the body is all of Christ Col. 2.17 and by so doing they violated Gods institution and unchurcht themselves 3. I suppose it agreed also that Christs Church is but one and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible yet make up one body 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal Though the Church was more eminently called Catholick when the wall of separation was taken down But I remember I have proved this in my Book part 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now Mr. T 's Answer The two first are granted To the third Though whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal yet it follows not which Mr. B. drives at and vainly talks of his proving that every one who was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ 2. Nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church c. Reply 1. None of this ever came into my thoughts which he untruly saith I drive at c. What sober man could imagine either of these assertions What pittiful abuse of ignorant Readers is this 2. And what a poor put off to the point in hand That which I said is but that all particular visible Churches and members make up one visible universal Church and therefore every visible member of any particular Church is a member of the universal He durst not deny this and yet a slander serveth his turn SECT XII R. B. COncerning the matter of the third question I assert that it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants werâ— members but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Mr. T 's Answer As yet I find it not prove that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Common-wealth or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of thâ— Common-wealth Reply 1. It is only a formal and not a material distinction that I medled with The formal reason of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ at least after the choice of Kings when the Republick was constituted by a humane head Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuspie's Aarons Rod If the Jews Common-wealth be specified as a Theocracy from God the Soveraign the Sichemites were of it and other nations might 2. But many say that some were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church though not contrarily And be they distinct or not it sufficeth me that Infants were of the Church SECT XIII XIV XV XVI R. B. MOreover 1. Infants were Church-members in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Common-wealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. 2. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to be members of their Common-wealth yet ceased not to be of their Church 3. The people of the Land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Common-wealth Nor the Sichemites 4. Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Common-wealth Mr. T. affirmeth them all to have been Common-wealths Answer The word being ambiguous may in a large sense be extended to a family and to a scattered people that have no Soveraign but is not so usually taken SECT XVII R. B. THE Children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jews Common-wealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Mr. T 's Answer Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews Reply 1. What a wide gap doth that at least make you yet to say They were a Church or no Church as you please 2. Reader use Scripture but impartially and in the fear of God and I will leave it to thy Conscience to judge whether it be credible that when God had foretold that Abraham would command his children and houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.19 and when Ishmael Keturahs children and Esau were circumcised by Gods command and God had yet promised the Political peculiarities specially to Isaac and Jacob yet God would have all the grandchildren of Ishmael Keturah Esau to be uncircumcised and all their posterity to cease that usage as soon as they were out of Abrahams house when yet History assureth us that they long continued it Or whether God would have them circumcised and yet be no Church-members Believe as evidence constraineth thee SECT XVIII R. B. TO the fourth question I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-ingaging and devoting them to God and so entring them solemnly Church-members And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some Infants and actually conferred it where
by a Legal right to it antecedent to their being such visible Church-members which they or any for them might claim as due Nor was it capable of being duly and rightfully received or usurped For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people who were in appearance from things sensible Gods people and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly viz. his forming them and bringing them into the world and placing them Reply More mystery still 1. Was there no antecedent Law or Covenant of God giving a jus societatis a Right of membership to Abrahams seed as soon as they had a being initially and commanding them to be devoted to God in Covenant and Circumcised that they by investiture might have a plenary Right Was there no such thing O but this gave them not a right to it before they had it Is the poor Church to be thus abused and holy things thus played with They could not be members before they had a being nor could lay claim to it But could not Gods Law Grant or Instrumental Covenant be made before they were born And could it not be the Instrument of conveying right to them as soon as they were born that is as soon as they were subjects capable And is not the cause in order of nature though not of time before the effect Cannot the Law of the Land be the fundamental cause of the Right of Infants to Honours and Estates though till they are in being they are not capable subjects Is not the Action ut agentis naturally antecedent to it as in patiente Is it only Gods transeunt fact of making them men and these men and placing them in England which maketh Infants to be members of the English Nobility or Gentry or Citizens or members of this Kingdom No but it is the Laws that do morally give the Jus dignitatis vel societatis though their action be not terminated in any subject till it exist For every man born in England is not born a Lord or Esquire or Citizen no nor a free subject unless the Law say it shall be so If Foreigners or Rebels should have children here and the Law were that they shall be Aliens they would be no members of the Kingdom If Mr. T. or Mr. D's children have nothing but Generation and being born in England to shew for their Inheritance their Title will not hold 2. And might not right have been falsly pleadded or usurped by a counterfeit Jew Or the children of such Or the children of Apostates who yet were born of Abrahams seed and in that Land Whatsoever they were that Nehemiah used severely I am sure Achans children and the Infants of the Cities that were to be consumed for Idolatry lost their right to life and Church-membership at once by their Parents sin And God might if he had pleased have continued the Life of Apostates children without continuing their Church-right Or Apostates might and no doubt multitudes did escape the justice of the Law through the fault of Magistrates or people and yet have no true Legal Right to Church-membership for themselves or Infants born after For he that hath lost his right to life hath lost his right or may do to the priviledges and benefits of it He addeth yet I grant they had a right in it that is that they had it by Gods donation Reply And was it not a Moral Donation then if it gave Right You will be forced thus to confute your self Mr. T. It seems to me not true that the nature of the benefit of Infants visible membership consisteth in a right to further benefits Reply Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so If we are at this pass about Relations and Right in general no marvail if Infant Baptism go for Antichristian Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen or of the member of any priviledged society consist in his state of Right to the Benefits Priviledges and Communion of the Society and an obligation to the duties of a member to the end he may have the benefits and the Society the benefit of his membership and duty A conjunction of Right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and obligation constituteth all such Relations But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here Next Mr. T. denieth the consequence For a man may have a benefit without right Reply 1. And yet just now Church-membership in Israel was a thing that none could usurp or have without right 2. But I said no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it And therefore if God give such a thing as Church-membership which consisteth in a Right to further benefits he that hath it by Gods gift hath it rightfully Natural effects as a prey to a thief may be said to be given of God improperly by Physical disposal to him that hath no right But right it self cannot be given to him that hath no right nor any thing else Relative or Natural by Gods Moral or Covenant donation He conceiveth it to be very erroneous that visible Church-membership is given out of distributive Justice for as Regeneration so also visible membership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord not of distributive Justice by God as Judge 2. That all that any man hath of God he hath of debt contrary to Rom. 4.4 3. That visible Church-membership is conceived as a thing offered and to be duly and rightfully received Reply If Mr. T. and I shall tire the Printer and wast Paper and trouble the world with telling them how many errors each of us hold it will be an unsavory task and I doubt it would be a much shorter work for one of us which ever it is to enumerate the useful truths we hold What I hold be it right or wrong I will tell the Reader as to this matter I hold that Gods Kingdom is to be considered in its Constitution and Administration The first hath 1. The efficient 2. The Constitutive 3. The final Causes And in the large sense it containeth 1. Subjects only by obligation such as Rebels are 2. Subjects by consent or voluntary The Efficient cause of the former is only Gods 1. Making them men and Redeemed men quoad precium and commanding their subjection or consent To the effecting of the second is besides these required their Actual Consent Parents consenting for their Infants without which they are but Rebels and have no right to the benefits of the Society God being a King de jure before his Government is Consented to maketh a Law to man to command them to consent and be his voluntary subjects To those that consent as the condition he promiseth the interest and blessings of his Covenant viz. Christ and Life and threatneth the privation of those benefits and sorer punishment to refusing rebels He is Lawgiver and will be Judge of Non-consenters called Vnbelievers and
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-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
would not be harmonical So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability so say they the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him So that as he could not let-sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessarily be punished for evil or rewarded for good that is he might have made him not a man yet having so made him it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity And if the immortality may be so proved from its nature then also its felicity in case of righteousness I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express 1. It is most certain whether the reward or promise be natural or positive that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to or in part and the way to more And it is most certain that man was made holy devoted to God and fit for his service and that in this estate according to the Law of his creation he was to increase and multiply It is most certain therefore that according to the first law of nature Infants should have been Church-members 2. But if their opinion hold that make the reward grounded on the law of nature and not on a meer positive law and you see the reasons are not contemptible then the argument would be yet more advantagious 3. But however it be of the title to glory or eternity it is most certain that according to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had stood The first Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-membership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own Image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency and so Church-members And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate Children in their own estate to be as the Parents were even in Gods Image Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-membership it proves not their visible Church-membership Reply Mark Reader that Gods Law and blessing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members though members What not so notorious a Law and Covenant and Benediction No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out if Innocent Adams must have been shut out He adds 2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance yet not suâ—h a Law or Ordinance as is in question which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates Reply Alas poor Readers that must be thus wearied I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes I know no Right given but it is eventually given nor received but it 's eventually received Admission is an ambiguous word My dictates as he calls them are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God by consenting to his Covenant for themselves and them 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Baptismal Covenanting Ordinance 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them and signifieth his consent to the mutual Covenant which is antecedently to their consent but a conditional consent or Covenant but consequently aâ—tual 4. That accordingly natural interest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member meerly because he is his BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his Creation and Redemption he is a Church-member initially upon heart-consent and by Investiture upon Sacramental consent which I think you mean by Admission 3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove such a Law or Ordinance yet it proves it not such a promise and precept as Mr. B. asserteth Reply Must such dealing as this go for an answer What 's the difference Mr. T. addeth 4. If it did yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature Reply You are hard put to it I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Ordinance Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an Increase and Multiply signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him if Adam had not sinned and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God Alas many go so much further as to assert as truth that had Adam stood nay but in that one temptation yea say some had he but once loved God all his posterity had not been only born Holy but confirmed as the Angels I cannot prove that but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned and so had been visible members And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature let awakened reason think whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children and children in Parents and then whether God have ever reverst this natural order Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it It seemeth out of doubt to me I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt but withal upon the promise of a Redeemer an universal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place Let them deny it that can and dare And it intimateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct interest with their Parents He saith that the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling not birth I would desire him if he can to tell me whether both Cain and Abel were not visible Church-members in Adams family And whether none but the Elect are visible members And whether God call not them that are visible members to that state He saith If this Law be in force all are born without sin Reply The Covenant of Innocency is not in force but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force and that Infants visible Church-membership was founded in Nature and that Law at first And therefore though our Innocency be lost Parents are Parents still And if God
he never gave right to it by promise 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes If besides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie God will save many in a neutral state why may he not saith the ungodly save me also for Infants once deserved punishment by original sin And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves he may do so by me 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know that die in Infancy And do all the promises to the seed of the faithful in the second Commandment and Exod. 34.7 and many another Text mean no such thing as they speak as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition but only I will save my elect And why might not this Covenant I will save my Elect be made with Cain or Cham or Judas as well as with Abraham 2. He saith Abrahams Infants were visible Church-members but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical Reply What a bare put off is that of a man that must say something Is it at all by the Covenant as Evangelical If yea we have our desire If not what meaneth barely but the nakedness of your ill cause 3. Then cometh next And if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk or will not know it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather than Evangelical Reply See Reader some more of the mysterie Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house but Church-membership signified but houshold and civil promises Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult But we may yet mistake him For rather is not a negative It is Rather than Evangelical which is but a preference not a denial O for plain honesty in things divine SECT L. R. B. 2. THat the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Church-member that had Infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose Infants also were not Church-members Except only the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ And whether their Infants be Church-members I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one Infant of a Church-member in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Church-member except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Reply Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer save a cross challenge oft answered and the instance of Timothy To which I say that if Timothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were But his Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal SECT LI. R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that saith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But Infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereof If you say Infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Church-member as the child of a Noble man is of his Honours and title to his Inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediator or head of the Church in his Infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Reply Here is so little said that needs but this remarke that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly which being Accepted of God is to Church-membership as private Marriage to publick where publication is wanting But he denieth that Parents may dedicate them by Baptism But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature if he cannot confute it let him not strive and sin against nature SECT LII R. B. 2. THe law of nature bindeth all Parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their Childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Mr. T. Really Infant Baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is and so are kept in presumption c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism c. Reply This nearly concerneth our cause I once inclined to these thoughts my self But I am satisfied 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from personal serious Covenanting with God at age We tell our Children and all the adult that their Infant Covenanting by Parents will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves And that without as serious a faith and consent of
right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Church-members and that nature revealeth to us that the Infants case much followeth the case of the Parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their Infants in the same Religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Vnder the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the Infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the Parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. That holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous Parents should have been born with all the perfections of their Parents and enjoyed the same priviledges than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants should be of the same society with their Parents and have the immunities of that society 2. We have no reason when the design of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much less under the Gospel to the members of Christ than under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous Parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the Parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to slow thence Exod. 34. and in the second Commandment 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their Parents sakes as many Texts of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt So much of that Reply Mr. T. saith nothing to all that I think the Reader needeth a reply to SECT LVIII R. B. YEt before I cite any more particular Texts I will add this one argument from the tenour of the Covenant of grace as expressed in many Texts of Scripture According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or law sense willing to be his people and to take him for their God But the Infants of believing Parents are thus willing Ergo. The Major is unquestionable The Minor is proved from the very law of nature before expressed Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sense Ergo the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sense and that is of the Parents who have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them for their good till they come to use of reason themselves The Parents therefore by the light and law of nature choosing the better part for their children and offering and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel refuse those that are so offered And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth he will in no wise cast out Joh. And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those that have the power to do it though they cannot offer themselves For legally this act is taken for their own Thus I have shewed you some of the fundamental title that Infants of Believers have to Church-membership and our obligation to dedicate them to God Reply Mr. T. saith that some acts of the Parents are legally taken for the childs is not denied But here he denieth it and I leave his denial with my copious proof in my Treatise of Infant-baptism to the Readers SECT LIX R. B. YOu must now in reason expect that infants Church-membership being thus established partly in the law of nature and partly in the fundamental promise what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment but confirmations and intimations of what was before done rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it than being such first establishing laws or promises themselves And from hence I may well add this further argument If there be certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-membership but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence to assign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest But the former is true ergo the later You confess that Infants were Church-members once You only conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conceit hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed when Abraham first believed But when it began to belong to Infants of Believers in general no Text except this before cited doth mention Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Church-membership of Infants but only an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing Reply To this Mr. T. still affirmeth that Infants Church-membership was proper to the Hebrews only Reader though they had their peculiarities is it credible that the Infants of that one small country only should be so differently dealt with by God from all the world else even Henoch 's Noe 's Sem 's and all from Adam to the end of the world that these Infants only should be Church-members and no others what unlikely things yea against evidence can some believe SECT LX LXI LXII R. B. NOW for the Texts that further intimate such a foregoing establishment 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living For it is to be noted what Bishop Usher saith Annal. vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum post semen promissum mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum Gen. 3.20 quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius Messiam promissum quomodo post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita 1 Pet. 3.6 Gal. 4.31 He put this name on her after the promise because she was to be the mother of all the living not only that live the life of nature but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed So that as she was
old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save only that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full express faith Mr. T. I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make Reply I would you had been as cautelous and modest throughout It is evident that they were to profess consent to Gods Covenant which those that denied Asa would put to death SECT CVI. R. B. YOu may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the seven last Questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Church-members I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Reply Here Mr. T. chides me for wronging him by length and being afraid the Reader will do so too I make haste SECT CVII CVIII R. B. ANd now I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Quest 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that Infants were visible Church-members not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable But either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant-making or not if you do what a saying is it that Infants were made Church-members not by Covenant but by a Covenant-making not by a Law but by a Law-making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Church-membership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to be devoted to God Which ever of these ways you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent judge Reply To this I find no answer worth the reciting SECT CIX R. B. Quest 2. IS it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser than others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a Law Promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transeunt fact is that without Law or Covenant makes Church-members I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now nor ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of distempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Reply I have nothing to say here but Mr. T. seems very angry at this SECT CX R. B. Quest 3. IS it not a desperate undertaking and dare you adventure on it to justifie all the world before Christs incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God to take him to be their God and themselves to be his people Yea to justifie all Jews against this charge that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church And doth not he that saith there is no law say there is no transgression Mr. T. He doth Let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his Lie of Infant Church-membership and Baptism by such Lies as these and fear the ate of Liers Reply Charge not your self and I will not I propose it to your consideration whether the persons that solemnly take God for their God according to Gods Covenant and are by his visible word of Covenant taken by God for his people be not visible members of the Church universal And whether he that saith There is no Law of God binding to do thus for his children do not infer that they sin not by not doing it SECT CXI R. B. Quest 4. DAre you yet justifie also at the Bar of God all the world since Christs incarnation from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children to Christ and entring them into his Covenant as members of his Church Dare you maintain that all the world is sinless in this respect Mr. T. I dare justifie the Non-baptizing them Reply Here you make a modest stop It seemeth you dare not justifie men for not solemnly dedicating them in Covenant to God and visibly engaging them to Christ as members visible of his Church SECT CXII R. B. Quest 5. HAve you well considered of the fruit of your ways apparent in England and Ireland at this day Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not And is it any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when you can venture even in these times when the persons are living in our company to tell me that you think I am mis-informed that they are Anabaptists and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized when of many that we know and multitudes that we hear of there are so few that were not before against Infant Baptism and the Seekers first such and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down Infant Baptism and it is one of the questions that they send to me and others to answer how we can prove it by express Scripture without consequences or else confess our selves false Prophets Reply The answer to this I leave to the Readers judgement SECT CXIII R. B. Quest 6. HAve you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred of the perverting of so many souls opening them such a gap to schism contempt of the Ministry and Apostasie destroying a hopeful reformation that cost so dear or weakning our hands in the work and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes and list themselves among you as the hopeful party to befriend their cause hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane and setling them again on their dregs when many once began to shake O what a Church might we have had and were likely to have
had Had it not been for the Separatists and you And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these Have these things toucht your heart Reply Mr. T. here is angry and I wonder not one stone he snatcheth up from Doct. Owens Appendix and one from the Scotch Church and Elders and the Church at Kederminster and the Worcestershire Association which few before him I think have said much against SECT CXIV R. B. Quest 7. IS a transeunt fact making Infants Church-members without Law Promise or Covenant a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things and run such hazards us you have done Or is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience durst make all this havock and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence When you should prove to us the revocation of Infants Church-membership to tell us that they had it only by a transeunt fact Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on Sir my conscience witnesseth that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you but some compassion on you do not scorn it and more on your poor followers and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled Reply Here Mr. T. is angry again which is the summ SECT CXV R. B. Quest 8. CAn you prove that ever there was one age or Church particular on earth since Adâ—m till about 200 years ago that the Anabaptists rose wherein Infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church If you can do it Let us hear your proof Mr. T. I can and for proof look back to Sect. 50 51. and besides Constantine Augustine Naz. Hierom Reply I can find no such thing there what if the four men you name were baptized at age the special reasons are told you elsewhere Doth that prove that others were not baptized in Infancy Your 52 Sect. I think to examine in the end SECT CXVI R. B. Quest 9. CAn you bring us proof of any one Infant of true Church-members that was not rightfully a Church-member himself from the creation till Christs days or from the creation till this day except the Anabaptists who reject the benefit whose case as I said before I will not presume to determine Mr. T. I can look back to Sect. 50 51 52 57. Reply I have done and I find no such proof SECT CXVII R. B. Quest 10. SEeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the creation to this day as far as any records can lead us is it likely that the Lord and head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects as in regard of age be disallowed And suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now Or is it a reasonable modest and lawful undertaking to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church as to the age of the subjects And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in Heaven lived in till the other day as a few Anabaptists with vile and sinful means and miserable success did attempt an alteration Mr. T. here denieth the suppositions I leave the Reader to judge how truly SECT CXVIII CXIX R. B. SIR pardon the weakness and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother though not as is meet Rich. Baxter May 14. 1655. Sir if you have any thing of moment to say in reply to these which you have not yet in your writings brought forth I shall be willing to consider of it But if you have not I pray you tel me so in two words and spare the rest of your pains as for me and trouble me no more with matters of this nature For truly I have no sufficient vacancy from greater works Yea I am constrained to forbear much greater than these R. B. After this he tells me that whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley in which I refuted by many arguments Infants visible Church-membership I must be either mutable or hypocritical if I deny such a Law and Ordinance which I took on me then to refute and desires a Copy of that Sermon that he may shew the sad mistakes and vanity of those my arguments Reply Reader to Mr. T.'s anger at these ten Questions I must say 1. That the dolefulness of the Churches case constrained me in grief of heart to deal plainly with him 2. But it was in a private letter extorted by his importunity and published to the world by himself and not by me who confess that this plainness was too great for me to have used to him publickly But secret admonition disparageth him not to others It hath now been by himself about nineteen years divulged to the world and I did not so much as trouble his patience by a word of answer and little thought ever to do it But Major Danvers his loud invitation hath drawn me to give them this Farewell THE Reader must here take notice that I am not here called to prove Infants Church-membership out of the New Testament but to shew out of the Old that they were visible Church-members before by a Grant or Covenant which Christ hath not repealed The rest out of the New-Testament I have done long ago in my Treatise of Infant Church-membership and Baptism which Mr. T. is so much displeased at And indeed I think that the proofs are plain though many objections may be difficult to be answered especially by those who have not throughly considered the case When I set together Christs own Infant membership and his kind reception of Infants and his chiding those that would have kept them off and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation into his Church and that they were broken off by unbelief and consequently the seed of Believers not broken off from the Church universal and that whole housholds are oft said to be baptized and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy and that Christ expresly Matth. 28. commandeth his Ministers as much as in them lieth to Disciple all Nations baptizing and it 's prophesied that the Kingdoms of the world shall be made the Kingdoms of Christ and there is no Nation or Kingdom on earth that Infants are not members of All this and much more seemeth to me a plain revelation of Gods will that as he never had a Church which excluded Infants so he doth not now exclude them And it is expresly said of the Jews that they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea 1 Cor. 10.2 where doubtless the Apostle in the name had respect to our being baptized into Christ of which theirs was a typical Baptism And it is not said in vain that they were all baptized
including their Infants but as part of the Analogie as if he had said As we now are all baptized into Christ These things seem to me a certain notification of Gods will herein which in the foresaid former Treatise I have fullier opened and improved And should I stand to answer all the words that Mr. Tombes hath said against it I should needlesly tire the Reader and my Self and lose that time which I cannot spare A Confutation of Mr. Tombes's Reasons Sect. 52. by which he pretendeth to prove that Infants were not reckoned to the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times nor are now Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus If no Infants were part of the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The Antecedent I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no Infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times But c. Ergo c. The Minor proved 1. All visible members of the Church-Christian were to be baptized But no Infants were to be baptized Therefore no Infants were visible members of the Christian Church Answ 1. To the Major they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted Mat. 28.19 but not before when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancie 2. To the Minor If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized what need he write his books Mr. T. 2. They were not visible members of the Church-Christian who were not of the body of Christ But no Infant was of the visible body of Christ proved from 1 Cor. 12.13 All that were of the body of Christ were made to drink into one spirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper But no Infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink that Cup c. Answ Denying the Minor I answer to the proof 1. To the Major 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only and yet now he maketh it to be the visible 2 All is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit which is expresly there said of all the members though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth then Baptism is first included and so if we prove Infants Church-members this Text will prove them to be baptizable according to Mr. T. Remember that 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper he may be turned about to confess himself For 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible if at all but as invisible also and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body have not the Sacrament 2. By this his exposition his adult Baptizing should not make or prove any to be visible Church-members till they drink of the Cup though it were a year or many years 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through scruples about Church-orders or their own fitness which are the cases of multitudes should be visible members Nor those that live where they cannot have the Sacrament Nor any Lay-man in all the Popish Church where the Cup is denied the Laity 2. To the Minor Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament in order to the rest to be partaked of in due time And as not every Church-suspension so Natural-suspension of further priviledges nullifieth not membership Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken But no Infant did partake Answ 1. Christ and his Disciples did not partake of it before the institution 2. No baptized persons partake of it in the interspace between the two Sacraments which with some is a long time 3. A baptized person may die before he drinketh that Cup or may live where it is not lawfully to be had 4. Church-members may be suspended from the Lords Table Therefore the text speaketh not of every member but of the ordinary communion of capable persons Mr. T. Eph. 4.5 The whole Church is one bodie and hath one Lord and one faith But no Infant hath one faith Answ 1. It is spoken of the generality of the noblest and capable members denominating the Church The Apostle saith not that every member hath all these but There is one Lord one faith c. Christ had not one Lord being Lord himself as here understood and yet was a member Christ in the womb cannot be proved to have actually hâ—d that one faith and he was long the chief member before he was baptized And whether ever the twelve Apostles were is uncertain 2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith called objective faith one Creed And this the Church might have and yet not each member actually believe For 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Childs who is used as a member of the Parent Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the Believers the multitude of the Disciples c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Testament Ergo Answ 1. Many texts speak of all that were present only and many speak only of such as the present matter did concern And it is most usual to denominate All or the Body from the Noblest and Greatest part If you were to describe a Kingdom would you not say that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures or men consenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects and the duties of each for the common welfare You would so define it as that Reason Consent and Intention should be in the definition Infants have none of these in act and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now And yet is it not usual with us to say that all the Church met to hear or to do this or that When yet the Infants and many others might be absent The Texts Mr. T. alledgeth are Acts 1.15 The number of the names together were about 120. Answ Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as
16. It is a foolish pretence of peaceableness and quietness to stand by in silence for fear of our own or others trouble and see well-meaning people seduced Christ and his truth and name abused and God dishonoured and his Churches shaken and made a scorn and scandal to the world and all for fear of being accounted contentious If it be lukewarm as they say themselves to hear dayly swearers cursers scorners and such other prophane sinners and not give them a close reproof or admonition so much more is it to see or hear hurtful falshoods published as the precious truths of God and not to contradict it nor endeavour to save mens souls from the infection If Satans work must be done without resistance as oft as a mistaken well-meaning man will do it there will be little safety for the flocks § 17. When Paul fore-told the Ephesians of two sorts that would assault them viz. Grievous devouring wolves and men arising among themselves that would speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them his conclusion is Therefore watch And what that watching is he tells Timothy The mouths of such deceivers must be stopped not by force for that Timothy had no power to do but by evident truth And Truth hath a power in its evidence if it be but rightly opened and managed And were it not that God in all ages had enabled some of his servants faithfully and clearly to vindicate truth and defend sound doctrine and hold fast the form of wholesome words and stop the mouth of ignorant pride that wrangleth against them what had become of us long agoe And though ill disputes have done much mischief and too often disputing succedeth more according to the Parts interests or advantages of the Disputers than according to the evidence of truth Yet for all such abuses Truth must be defended and it findeth something even in nature as bad as man is to befriend it few love a plain falshood unless where interest greatly bribeth them And upon tryal Truth will at last prevail where sin doth not provoke God in judgement to leave men to the delusions which they chuse § 18. If then the way be to Teach and Learn and quietly open the evidence of truth and in meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves and to avoid contentions as we avoid wars till other mens assâ—ults do make them unavoidably necessary and yet not to be cowardly betrayers of the Truth and Church of God nor suffer Satan to deceive men unresisted but earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints It must be considered I. To whom this earnest contending may be used II. And by whom § 19. I. We must not be over sharp or earnest 1. With those that are yet strangers to Religion of whose conversion there is hope and who are liker to be won by a gentler way which more demonstrateth love and tenderness 2 Tim. 2.25 26. § 20. 2. Nor with Godly Christians who fall into such sins of infirmity as we are lyable to and whose tenderness maketh compassionate tender dealing fittest to their recovery Gal. 6.1 2 3. § 21. 3. Nor with humbled dejected Christians who are apter than we to aggravate their own faults and have need of comfort to restrain their sorrows and keep them from despair 2 Cor. 2.7 § 22. 4. Nor with sinners that under conversion and repentance are humbling themselves by confession to God and man Luk. 15. Philem. 10 16 17. § 23. 5. Nor with Christians that differ from us in tolerable matters and manage their differences but with tolerable infirmities not hazarding the safety of the Church or mens souls § 24. But in these cases we must use plainness sharpness and earnestness 1. When in secret where mens honour with others is not concerned it is necessary to mens convictâ—on and repentance 1. Because of the Greatness of the sin or error which will not be known if it be not truly opened and aggravated 2. Or by reason of the hard-heartedness or obstinacy of the sinner that will not be convinced or humbled by easier means § 25. 2. And when we are called so to admonish a publick sinner for his crimes or heresies which must be opened as they are before he will be convinced and humbled openly before the Church § 26. 3. And when the people or Church is in danger of being infected by the sin or error if the evil of it be not fully and plainly opened and the sinner rebuked before all that others may beware § 27. 4. When the offender or heretick sheweth us by his obstinacy that we have no cause to expect his cure and conviction but are only to defend Gods truth and mens souls against him then he must be used as Christ did the Pharisees and as Rulers execute malefactors not for their own good but for the warning of others and preservation of the innocent § 28. 5. And when our gentle speeches tend to scandalize those without and make them think that we prevaricate and favour Christians in their sins § 29. All these cases you may see proved 1. In Nathans dealing with David and Christs with Peter Matth. 16. and Pauls Gal. 2. c. 2. In Pauls dealing with the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. and Peters with Ananias and his wife 1 Tim. 5.20 Them that sin rebuke before all c. 2 Tim. 4.2 Tit. 1.13 Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith cuttingly Tit. 2.15 Rebuke with all authority especially when we deal with Inferiors who must be humbled Tit. 3.10 11. Mat. 23. throughout And Eli's gentleness or remisness is our warning § 30. II. And as to the persons who must use this sharpness and earnestness against errors and sinners in contending for the faith 1. It is not those who overvalue their own conceptions and grow fond of all that is peculiarly their own and insolently take all men to be enemies to truth and faith and godliness who are adversaries to their odd opinions 2. Nor must inferiors rise up with insolency against superiors or the young against their elders and the ignorant against the wife on pretence of a zealous standing for the truth Though they may humbly and modestly defend that which is truth indeed 3. Nor should unstudyed Christians presently think hardly of any party and backbite them and inveigh against them because their Leaders call them hereticks or reproach them as erroneous dangerous men as almost all parties do against each other 4. Nor should those Ministers who have not a through insight into a Controversie meddle much with it nor be too forward to reprove and reproach where they do not understand nor to undertake disputes which they cannot manage 5. But as God doth indow men with various gifts if each man were imployed according to his talent all would have their honour and comfort and the Church the benefit of them all § 31. We have notoriously all these sorts of Ministers in the
world 1. Carnal proud and worldly hypocrites who are enemies to that which is against their pride and worldly interest These contend malignantly against Godliness 2. Ignorant idle fleshly droans that eat and drink and mind the world but meddle not much with controversies 3. Professors of Religious zeal who espouse some singular dividing way and turn all their studies to make good their mistakes who have laudable abilities perverted by prejudice error and interest 4. Honest Preachers that serve God in practical preaching but being but half studied in some controversies are yet as forward and busie in disputing censuring and reproving dissenters as if they knew as much as the cause requireth I would all these would meddle with no controversies but what great necessity in plain and certain cases calls them to 5. We have many humble truly Godly men who as they are conscious that they are not well studied for controversie so they meddle not with it but lay out themselves in preaching the truths that we all agree in and do God and his Church much service in quietness and peace These are the men that the Church is most beholden to 6. Some are judicious and very fit for controversie but too cold in the practical part of Religion 7. Some excellent holy men like Augustine have so digested the matter as to be able to defend the truth against all adversaries and live accordingly Only these two last sorts should be imployed in such disputes SECT II. Of the weight and nature of the present controversie § 1. I think it a matter in this distracted age which you may be much concerned in to know what weight is to be laid on the controversie about Infant Baptism that you may neither come too short nor go too far For my part when the Christian Parent or owner to whom God in Nature and Scripture hath intrusted the Infant doth heartily dedicate him to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and consent that he stand related according to the Baptismal Covenant I am none of those that believe that God who is a Spirit layeth so much upon the application of the water as to damn any such Infant meerly for the want of it And though I cannot subscribe to as much more as some would have me who think so much better of their own understandings than ever any evidence perswaded me to do as to judge themselves worthy to be Creed-makers for all others yea and to be called The Church it self yet I approve of the seventeenth Canon of the Synod of Dort Art 1. that faithful Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children dying in Infancy § 2. And I hope all the pious Anabaptists themselves do virtually though not actually devote their children to God and consent to their Covenant relation while they vehemently plead against it For surely they have so much natural affection that if they did think that God would be a God in special Covenant with their children and pardon their Original sin and give them right to future life upon the Parents dedication and consent they would undoubtedly accept the gift and be thankful And I believe most of them would say I would do all that God intrusteth and enableth me to do that my child may be a child of God and I would give him up to God and accept any mercy for him as far as God doth authorize me so to do § 3. And if Parents and Owners will not consent that their children be in Covenant with God and be baptized I am not yet satisfied what remedy we have nor who can do it for them to as good effect For if any one may do it as some plead then all Heathens children may be so used and saved And he that perswadeth me that there is extant such a Covenant or promise of God that he will save every Heathens child that is but by any one brought to baptism 1. He must shew me that text where this promise is 2. And when he hath done he will leave me perswaded that God will save all Heathens Infants whether baptized or not 1. Because I and ten thousand more Christians would sit in our closets and offer to God all the Infants in the world that is consent that he be their reconciled God and they his children and in Covenant with him what good man would not desire their salvation 2. And I should not easily believe that God will damn them all meerly for want of a strangers consent to save them were that wanting 3. Much less that when we do consent a thousand or ten thousand miles off that all the children e. g. in China or Siana shall be baptized and saved that this shall not hinder their damnation meerly because the Infants and we are so distant that we cannot in sight and presence offer them to God surely if my consent that a Turks child be baptized and saved will do it if he were with me it may do it a mile off and if so then ten thousand miles off 4. And if I be impowred to consent I shall never believe that the bare want of the water will damn him who hath all things else that God hath made necessary to his salvation as I said before I think they give too much to Baptism who say that God will either save any one by it who wanteth other things necessary to salvation or that he will damn any for want of it that is of the washing of the body who want nothing else which is necessary to salvation And I doubt they that say otherwise will prove dishonourers of the Christian Religion by feigning it to be too like to the Heathenish superstition laying mens salvation on a ceremony as of absolute necessity And I am confident it is contrary to Christs redoubled lesson Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice And no men shall unteach me this great and comfortable lesson which Christ hath so industriously taught me and which hath been long written so deeply on my heart as hath made all unmerciful persecutions and separations and alienations very displeasing to me § 4. I have proved afterwards that even Augustine himself doth as on great deliberation assert that where the Ministry of baptism is not despised Heart conversion without it sufficeth to salvation in the adult And no scripture or reason doth make it absolutely necessary to Infants if not to the adult § 5. And if Heathens Infants are not damned meerly for want of outward baptism nor yet for want of the consent of others either because that other mens consent who are strangers to them is not necessary to their salvation or if it be necessary they have it at a distance then it will follow that all the Infants of Heathens are in a state of salvation unless somewhat else be yet proved necessary to it And if they are all saved then so are all Christians Infants also or else they are more
meerly because he elected them some will say why may he not do so also by the Parents at least renewing them all in transitu § 15. If you say that He giveth them freely his sanctifying grace and giveth them right to Salvation as sanctified though he tell us not who are sanctified I answer 1. Take heed lest you teach the presumptuous to say the same of Infidels Heathens and almost all that God may in the passages when they are dying sanctifie and save them all 2. Still this giveth no positive hope of any particulars nor more to Christians for their Children than they may have of the Children of Infidels nor any promise of the spirit and sanctification as Believers have § 16. I take it therefore for the soundest Doctrine that Gods taking the Children of the Faithful into Covenant with him and becoming their God and taking them for his own doth signifie no less than a state of Grace and pardon and right to life eternal and that they are in this state upon their Parents Consent and Heart-devoting them to God in Christ before baptism but baptism is the solemnizing and investiture which openly coram Ecclesia delivereth them possession of their visible Church-state with a sealed pardon and gift of life For it is not another but the same promise and Covenant which is made to the faithful and their feed And all Gods promises to the many Generations of them in the second Commandment and many other Texts cannot mean any such little blessings as consist with a state of damnation and the possession of the Devil And all the ancient Churches in baptizing of Infants were of this mind whom I will not despise And Abrahams case perswadeth me that the Children of Natural and Civil Parents truly their Owners have this right before they are baptized But the former natural Parents have plainer evidence than the later which is a darker case But as for them that think either that all Infants are saved or all baptized Infants â—ure vel injuria though no Parent or Owner consent or dedicate them heartily or openly to God or though they are hypocrites and truly consent not for themselves or theirs let them prove it if they can but I must say it is past my power § 17. I know the grand difficulty is that then this Infant-Grace is lost in many that live to riper age I have said so much of this in my Christian Directory that I will refer the considering Reader thither only adding 1. That far greater absurdities will follow the contrary opinion and the greater are not to be chosen I am loth again to name them 2. That the universal Church as far as by any notice we can know did for many hundred years grant the conclusion and take it for no absurdity but a certain truth yea much more Austin and his followers themselves thought more at age were truly justified and sanctified than were elected and did persevere And some hold that not all that have the sanctifying spirit but only certain confirmed Christians have a certainty to persevere And others hold that as the spirit of Christ is promised to Believers though men believe not without the spirit so that measure of Grace which causeth men only to believe as antecedent to that promised spirit of Power Love and a sound mind is but such as may be lost as Adams was and that it is the spirit following it as the rooted habit which cannot be lost And others come yet lower and say that the Grace which giveth faith it self cannot be lost because such have the promise of the spirit but yet the grace which only enableth men to Repent and Believe called sufficient may be lost before it produce the Act Accordingly some think of Infant-Grace The last sort think that they have real pardon of original sin and right to life and have real Grace but being Infants that grace is but such as will enable them to believe if they come to age and not infallibly cause it and that this may be lost And so I might run over the opinions of the rest And among all these the judgement of Davenant Ward c. of the loss of an Infant-state of Grace as by them opened is not so hard as I think the contrary way will infer And it seems by Art 1. c. 17. that the Synod of Dort was of their mind § 18. Our darkness about the future state of Infants Souls hath occasioned some diversity of thoughts about their present state Indeed they will neither in Heaven or Hell have any work for Conscience in the review of any former actions good or evil And it seemeth by Nazianzene before cited Orat. 40. that some Ancients thought as most Papists do that unbaptized Infants have neither the joys of Heaven nor any punishment but the loss of these But what state then to place them in they know not To think that they shall remain in a meer potentiality of understanding and shall know no more than they did here is to equal them with bruits and to encourage the Socinians who say the like of the separated souls of the adult And if they can allow understanding to those that died baptized why not to the rest And if they understand they must have grief or pleasure But who can know more than God revealeth § 19. In sum 1. That God would have Parents devote their Children to him and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant as I have elsewhere proved is a great truth not to be forsaken 2. And also that he accepteth into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him and is peculiarly their God and such Children are holy 3. That they are certainly members according to an Infant capacity of the visible Church as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven These are all clear and great truths 4. And that there is far more hope of their salvation than of those without 5. And I think the Covenant maketh their Salvation certain if they so die 6. And it seemeth to me that the investiture and solemnization of their Covenant with Christ should be made in Infancie from Matth. 28.19 20. and the exposition of the universal Church 7. But if any should think with Tertullian and Nazianzene that the time of investiture and solemnization is partly left to prudence and may be delayed in case of health yea or should think that Infants are not to be solemnly invested by baptism but only the adult so they confess Infants relation to God his Covenant and Church I would differ from such men with love and peace and mutual toleration and communion CHAP. I. The Occasion of this Writing § 1. AS I was by great and long importunity unwillingly engaged at first to meddle publickly in the Controversie of Infant Baptism with Mr. Tombes so I then resolved to meddle no more with it unless I found that necessity made it an apparent duty § 2. Accordingly when Mr.
me over-sharp § 4. His words are Donatus a learned man in Africa taught that they should baptize no Children but only that believed and desired it Answ Utterly false And how doth he prove it By Sebast Frank. whom I will not search to see whether he say so or not Reader if the question be what was done said or held by thousands of men twelve hundred years ago and the Writings of them and their Adversaries were extant and the Histories written of them in that and the next Ages would you have a man pass by all proof from these and tell you what a fellow of his own opinion saith eleven hundred years after He brings us with great ostentation the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrologie and such like Histories of a few years old of fellows that knew little more than as he doth what their Party or Companions told them or what they ignorantly gathered from such Books as are yet to be seen by us as well as by them If I should dispute what Augustine held would Mr. D. fetch his proofs from the writings of James Nailor or George Fox or Isaac Pennington yea or Mr. Tombes to prove his assertions while Augustines works are at hand to be seen § 5. So next he saith that the followers of Donatus were all one with the Anabaptists denying Baptism to Children admitting the Believers only thereto who desired the same And he 〈◊〉 one called Twisk Ansâ— â—tterly false They held no such thing § 6. His next proof is indeed from an unquestionable witness he saith Augustines third and fourth Books against the Donatists do demonstrate that they denied Infant-Baptism wherein he manageth the argument for Infant-Baptism against them with great zeal enforcing it by several arguments but especially from Apostolical Tradition and cursing with great bitterness they that should not embrace it § 7. Answ Mr. Bagshaw is now quite over-done in the quality of untruths Reader either this man had seen and read the Books of Augustine mentioned by him or he had not If not doth he use Gods Church and the souls of poor ignorant people with any tenderness of Conscience sobriety or humanity to talk at this rate of Books that he never saw or read which are so common among us to be seen If he understand not Latine how unfit is he to give us the History of these antiquities And how audacious to talk thus of what he knoweth not If he understand it what cruelty is it to the Church to venture on such untruths to save him the labour of opening and reading the books he talketh of But if he have read them then I can scarce match him again among all the falsifiers that I know in the world I dare not be so uncharitable to him as to think that ever he read them § 8. The Books are seven that Augustine wrote of Baptism against the Donatists And in them all I cannot find one syllable of intimation that ever the Donatists denied Infant-â—â—â—â—ism but enough to the contrary that they 〈◊〉 Nor do the third and fourth books mentioned by him meddle with it any more than the rest There is not in the seven books nor in all the rest of Austins books against the Donatists one word that I can find of any such controversie with them at all And for a man to say that in two books he manageth the arguments for Infant-Baptism against them with great zeal c. when there is not one word that supposeth them to deny it blush Reader in compassion for such a man § 9. Reâ—der the Donatists were a great party of men in Africa They were Prelatical and for Ceremonies as the other Churches were They differed from the rest on the account of the Personal succession of their Bishops In a time of persecution they said truly or falsly was a great controversie that one of the Bishops delivered up the Church-books to the Persecutors to be burnt rather than die himself when they demanded them And that the Catholick Bishops received successively their ordination from that man and called them Traditores whereas the Bishop that all their Bishops had successively been ordained by was one that had refused to deliver up the Church-books And consequently he was the right Bishop and they that had their succession from him were true Bishops and Churches and all the rest were no true Bishops or Churches and therefore that all their Baptism and Sacraments were nullities and their Communion unlawful and that all people were bound in Conscience as ever they would be saved to separate from the rest called Catholicks and to come to them and to be rebaptized So that their Schism was much like the Papists who confine the Church to their party and condemn all others save that the Papists ordinarily rebaptize not though they say some Monks have done it as elsewhere I have cited The Donatists were Episcopal ceremonious Separatists that did it on the account of a purer Episcopal succession Till their days the holy Doctors of the Church had almost all been against drawing the sword against Hereticks even Augustin himself But the greatness of their party and the proud conceit of their greater zeal and strictness than the Catholicks had made them so furious that the Catholick Pastors could not live quietly by them Insomuch that some of them wounded the Ministers in the streets and some of them made a salt sharp water and spouted into Ministers eyes as they past the street to put out their eyes till many such insolencies provoked Augustin to change his judgement of toleration and especially the multitudes seduced by them and the Bishops to crave the Emperors aid The Emperor made Edicts for mulcts and banishment to those that persevered This being a new way so exasperated the Donatists that in very passion many of them yea Bishops murdered themselves to bring odium on the Catholicks to make the people believe that the cruelty of the Catholicks compelled them to it And this was the state of these two parties but not a word of difference about Infant-Baptism between them that ever I read in either part § 10. The Controversie between Austin and them he thus stateth Lib. 1. c. 1 2. Si haberi foris potest etiam dari cur non potest Baptism received out of the Catholick or true Church among Schismaticks is true baptism and therefore baptism given without by Schismaticks is true baptism Impie facere qui rebaptizare conantur orbis unitatem nos recte facere qui Dei Sacramenta improbare nec in ipso schismate audemus They do impiously that endeavor to rebaptize all the united Christian world and we do rightly who dare not deny Gods Sacraments no not in a Schism For Augustin peaceably held the Donatists baptism to be true and valid though irregular and unlawfully given and taken but the Donatists held all the Catholicks Ministry and baptism null § 11. Therefore he thus summeth up their differences cap. 3. Duo sunt
quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice
they had would that prove that the Novatians were seven hundred or eight hundred years before § 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism the sixth Council of Carthage saying that All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy and saith It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not and can signifie nothing against all the former evidence And is it not shame and pity that so publick matters of fact must be handled at this rate What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at to find that one called a man and a Christian and too good for the communion of such as we should be guilty of And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so publick a matter of History as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be produced if it were of any need And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatists hold so well as he and such as he § 30. His next witnesses are the ancient Britains that having received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles times did intirely keep thereto whom Austin the Monk would have engaged especially in Christening children and keeping Easter but in asmuch as they utterly refused to be seduced by him therein c. Answ This is a witness being such a body of witnesses of great importance as that of the Donatists and Novatians was if it were true But it 's all false still And must our own Countrey yea all our Christian Ancestors be thus slandered Whether Britain received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles time if he mean in that time is very doubtful and nothing to our business we have no sufficient proof of any such thing The Reason of the case maketh me conjecture that Christianity was first brought hither by Soldiers of the Roman Legions especially since I read in Beda that the first Temple I find any mention of was built at or near Canterbury by such Soldiers But who ever brought it it 's like they were of the Asian and not the Roman opinion whether Soldiers that had been in the Asian Legions or who else is not known and it is certain that they were not against the observation of Easter For both they and the Scots that concurred with them against the Romans did strictly keep it But all the question was of the due time § 31. Nor is there the least proof or probability that they were against Infant Baptism 1. Because Augustine the Monk that quarrelled with them never chargeth them with it in his Ep. to Gregory or to themselves 2. Beda that was downright against them and a Roman zealot and the ancientest writer after Austins time and lived in the same Country with them and knew them and describeth all the contests with them yet never layeth any such thing to their charge when yet he mentioneth the Rebaptizing of One by Bishop John because it was an ignorant insufficient man for the Priesthood that Baptized him and this a rare instance 3. The Scots that about Easter and other contrarieties to the Romans were of the Britains mind and refused so much as to eat with the Romans yet are charged with no such thing 4. And the controversie continued for above an hundred years after Austins time and great stir and meetings and disputes were about it as Beda tells us at large before the Scots were changed And in all that time there would have been opportunity for their forward adversaries especially Wilfrid afterward St. Boniface of Mentz who was the Chief to have found out this matter of accusation 5. None of the historians near following those times do charge any such thing on them And yet were the old Britains against Infant-Baptism § 32. But to put all out of doubt take the words of Austin to them in his three demands thus by Beda recorded Eccl. Hist li. 2. c. 2. Vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut Ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Romae sanctae Ecclesiae et Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum domini That is 1. That you celebrate Easter at the due time 2. That ye compleat the Ministry of Baptism by which we are born again to God according to the fashion or manner of the holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church 3. That you Preach with us the word of God to the English Nation And what is here of Infant-Baptism How proveth he that that was meant by the Roman manner or fashion of Baptizing Is the subject of Baptism the Manner when about the Manner indeed there were then so many and different ceremonies Nay when above an hundred years before this Austins dayes a wiser Austin had told the Donatists that the whole Church was agreed for Infant-Baptism and no one Christian held it to be in vain sure this was not so long after a Manner peculiar to Rome But thus the honour of our Ancestors and the history of the Church and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us must all be heinously wronged by the falshoods of rash presuming ignorant men § 33. And if this had been as true as it is false that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism it would inform these men that it is not delaying Baptism till riper age that will keep it from formality nor the Church from falling into all impiety For if our eldest historian Gildas may be believed and who may if not he his Countrymen the Britains were Princes Priests and People fallen to such abhominable wickedness murder drunkenness filthy lusts deceit theft cruelty c. that he takes the Princes for wolves and monsters and the Priests for no Priests but traytors excepting some good men among them c. It is neither Infant nor Adult Baptism that will secure against the corrupting of Churches but Grace with either hath saved souls § 34. He cites himself here Fox quoting Beda Polychron and others And what say they Baptizing after the manner of Rome And what 's that to his question But he tells you that Faâ—â—an saith that you give Christendom to children I have not Fabian to examine but if he do when he knoweth that he is an empty fâ—llow of the other day as it were and that he hath nothing but what cometh from Gregory and Beda and that in them there is no such thing will a kâ—â—wn â—aâ—sification of a 〈◊〉 about nine hundred years after disprove the yet vâ—â—ible words of the 〈…〉 which undertake to give you not only the seâ—se but the very terâ—◠§ 35. He proceedeth to prove by argument that the Britains were against-Infant Baptism 1. Because they
censorious of them as to think that they need any more to his frustration If they will not must I write another book to tell them what I have written in the former How shall I know that they will any more read the last than the first If Satan have so much power over them that he can make them err and lie and slander and backbite as oft as a man professing zeal for the truth will be his instrument and messenger it is not my writing more books that can save them The end must tell them whether I or they shall be the greater losers by it § 24. I have therefore but these two wayes now to take 1. Whereas this man saith that my doctrine seemeth heynous to every one of my Non-conforming brethren and most Protestants and that I have lost my self among my friends I do demand as their duty and my right the Means of my conviction and reductâ—on from those brethren if any whom he doth not belie I profess my self ready privately or publickly to give them an account of the reasons of all my doctrine and thankfully to retract whatever they shall manifest to be an error And I challenge any of them to prove that ever I refused to be accountable to them or denyed a sober answer to their reasons or refused to learn of any that would teach me or to study as hard to know as they or that ever partiality faction or worldly interest bribed me to deal falsly with my conscience and betray the truth And if after this claim they will be silent I will take them for consenters or if by backbiting only any will still notifie their dissent I will take them for such as I take this writer and in some respect worse though not in all § 25. II. My second remedy is I will go willingly to School to Mr. D. and having said so much for the Learning against the Disputing way I will become his hearer and reader if he have any thing to teach me that savoureth of Truth and Modesty more than this noysome fardel doth which he hath published And to that end I will here give him a Catalogue of the contrary opinions to mine which I desire him solidly to prove If he hold not the contrary doctrines why doth he exclaim against mine as heynous If he do hold the contrary to what I have with due and clear distinction and explication opened and his Readers after the perusing of all my own words together be of his mind I then take these following to be their own opinions and part of their Religion which I desire them to make good and teach them me by sufficient proof CHAP. VIII A Catalogue of some Doctrines of Mr. Danvers and the rest that with him accuse my Christian Directory if indeed they hold the contrary to mine which they accuse as must be supposed by their accusation which as a Learner I intreat any of them solidly to prove OF the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him The falshood of his inserting in a Popish Countrey in their way of Baptizing in that cited place which spake only of the Lutherans I pass by as weary of answering such But I. That it is a sin for any man supposing Infant Baptism a duty to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use though he profess his own dissent and dissallowance of those ceremonies and though he cannot lawfully have it done better but must have that or no Baptism at all II. That in the ancient Churches of the second third and fourth ages it had been better to be unbaptized than to use a white Garment in Baptism as they did or to be anointed as then or to taste Milk and Honey though the Person offering his child to such Baptism had professed his dissent as aforesaid III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second third and fourth and following ages who were Baptized thus Infant or adult had no Baptism but what was worse than none Though Church history certifie us that this use was so universal that it 's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it or refused it By the way it was but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear to foist in Peril of Law when I had not such a word or sense as Peril As if you knew of no Obligation there but from Peril IV. Your pag. 373. ed. 2. That anointing using the white Garment Milk and Honey were Blasphemous rites and Popish before Popery was existent or if otherwise that All Christs Church was Popish then V. Your Pref. ed. 1. That Christs Ministers rightly ordained and dedicated to God in that sacred office are not so much as Relatively holy as separated to God therein VI. That Temples and Church Vtensils devoted and lawfully separated by man to holy uses either are not justly Related to God as so separated or though so separated and Related are in no degree to be called Holy VII Your Pref. 16. That no Reverence is due to Ministers and Church utensils VIII Ibid. To be uncovered in the Church and use reverent carriage and gestures there doth not at all tend to preserve due reverence to God and his worship IX Ibid. That the unjust alienation of Temples Vtensils lands dayes which were separated by God himself is no sacriledge no not to have turned the Temple of old and the sacred things to a common use unjustly nor the Lords day now But thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou more than commit Sacriledge Even teach men so to do and say It is no Sacriledge no not when God himself is the separater and man the unjust alienater And yet is Infant-Baptism a sin X. Ibid. That it 's no sacriledge unjustly to alienate things justly consecrated and separated to God by man as Ministers Lands Vtensils c. Remember Ananias and Saphira XI Ibid. That it is a sin to call a Minister a Priest though it be done in no ill design nor with any scandal or temptation to error and though he that useth the word profess that he doth it but as a translation of the Greek word Presbyter and as God himself doth Rev. 1.6 and 5.10 and 20.6 and 1 Pet. 2. 5.9 Question Whether it is sinfully used in Scripture XII Ib. Accordingly it is sin to use the word Altar for Table or the word Sacrifice for worship as thanksgiving c. though with all the foresaid cautions and though God so use them in the Scripture 1 Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 16. Phil. 4.18 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.10 Rev. 6.9 and 8.3 5. and 16.7 And that all the ancient writers and Churches sinned that so spake XIII That no sober Christians should allow each other the Liberty of such phrases without censoriousness or breach of Charity and peace Ibid. pref XIV Ibid.
the Baptism of water but it is necessary to receive it when the opportunity of circumstance is offered And seeing whatever cometh to pass doth come to pass of necessity it maybe said that such a one cannot be saved without such Baptism And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity he saith Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet The Reader must pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer which may thus be Englished But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit It seemeth that whereas Tertullian Mr. D.'s first witness was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity but not for womens that Wickliffe was for womens also And to the next quâ—stion Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptism could not be had be all damned he answereth Et per haec respondeo ad c. that is And by this I answer your third objection granting that God if he will may damn such an Infant and do him no wrong and if he will he can save him And I dare not define either part nor am I careful about reputation or getting evidence in the case but as a dumb man am silent humbly confesing my ignorance using conditional words because it is not yet clear to me whether such an Infant shall be saved or damned But I know that whatever God doth in it will be just and a work of mercy to be praised of all the faithful And let not them like presumptuous fools pour out themselves that of their own authority without knowledge define any thing in that matter Qui autem dicit c. But he that saith that in this case put an Infant shall be saved as it is pious to believe he doth superfluously uncertain himself more than will profit him But there are some things in Parents power though lapsed into a thing Past for which it is necessary by Gods just judgement that so it should come to pass Therefore he that defineth that neither Parents nor people so sinned that it should so come to pass doth speak as a Pie on the head of his own knowledge But we believe it as a point of faith that nothing befalls a man after the first grace unless some part of mankind either merit or demerit that this shall come to pass In the next thirteenth Chapter he proceedeth to answer the question Quomodo animae talium Infantium sine peccato actuali decedentium punientur Having before spoken of Infants dying unbaptized unavoidably that is How the souls of such Infants shall be punished whether all equally or unequally and whether only with the punishment of loss or also of sense And he concludeth contrary to the greater part of the Papists that they shall have both the punishment of Loss and Sense and Note that that Necesse est peccata originalia hominum esse inaequalia sicut decedentes in originalibus sunt propter illa inaequaliter condemnandi Nam juxta dicta omnes condemnati pro originalibus sunt condemnandi tam poena damni quam poena sensus sed impossibile est quod condemnentur aequaliter omnino illis poenis ergo relinquitur quod peccata quibus illas poenas demeruerunt inaequalia sunt dicenda That is It must needs be that the Original sins of men are unequal as those that die in Original sins are unequally to be condemned for them For as is said all that are condemned for original sin are condemned both with the punishment of Loss and of Sense But it is impossible that they should be damned altogether equally with those pains Therefore it remaineth that the sins by which they deserved those punishments be said to be unequal Reader I have been the larger in transcribing and translating the words of Wickliffe because an Author is not so well understood by a line or two dismembred from the rest as by whole discourses and so that his sense may be past all controversie Here it is visible that Wickliff was so far from denying Infant-Baptism that 1. He expresly asserteth it 2. He never so much as noteth it for any controversie nor maketh any doubt or question about it 3. Yea he taketh it to be bold presumption for any to take upon them to know whether an Infant that dyeth unavoidably unbaptized be saved or not but only saith God can do it if he will and he can damn him 4. And to those that say that the Parents are not in the fault nor the people seeing they intended his Baptism he saith that many things come to pass for past sins of Parents and people and therefore that cannot be concluded and nothing after the first grace cometh to pass unmerited 5. And he concludeth that those of them that are damned for original sin are punished with pain of loss and sense but unequally having unequal original sins 6. But Baptism he asserteth doth put away all sin in the rightly Baptized 7. And that when Infants are rightly Baptized with water they are Baptized with the third Baptism having Baptismal grace 8. That it is according to Christs rule that Infants be brought to the Church to be Baptized And now Reader judge what a sad case poor honest ignorant Christians are in that must have their souls seduced troubled and led into Love-killing alienations and separations and censures of Christs Church and of their particular brethren by such a man as this And whether they that dare use souls at this rate are so much better than us as to be above our communion Nay whether those that lately revile the Zeal of dissenters as cherishing the most odious crimes be not too much scandalized and hardened by such dealings When a man as pleading for Christ and Baptism dare not only print such things but stand to them in a second edition and defend them by a second book and Rage and be Confident in reviling those that tell him of his untruths § 10. But he hath many pretended reasons to prove that Wickliff was against Infant-Baptism and some of them out of the very Chapters which I have transcribed 1. Saith he He asserted two Sacraments 2. That believers must be baptized in pure water And what are these to the purpose 3 That believers are the only subjects of Baptism A gross untruth But he giveth you the words that prove it Ideo absque dubitatione si iste insensibilis baptismus affuerit baptizatus à crimine est mundatus si ille defuerit quantumcunque essent priores baptismus non prodest animae ad salutem I gave you the words before And did the man think that this is any thing to his purpose Wickliff saith Water Baptism saveth no soul young or old without the Baptism of the Spirit Therefore saith Mr. D. Wickliff saith that Believers are the only
de erorribus Begehurdorum and have not a word of it What the Papist doctrine was you need no better informer than Lucas Tudensis foregoing Part. 1.636 who writeth against worse persons though Gretser intitleth it against the Albigenses and yet chargeth them not with this viz. Cap. 1. li. 2. In case of necessity every Neophyte maybe Baptized of any Lay-man Jew Heretick or Gentile But for the dignity of the Sacrament it must be done by a Presbyter or Deacon if there be opportunity and received from any other it is not at all to be iterated By this Sacrament both Infants and adult are Regenerated of Water and the Spirit and receive remission of all sins with the adoption of the children of God § 25. If all this will not clear the Waldenses at Mr. D.'s barr and if he look that we should take notice of his Dutch Martyrologie and his Merningus let him that erreth err still CHAP. IV. His Impenitence in Calumniating the Donatists and Novatians reprehended § 1. PAg. 132. of his Reply he returneth to this notorious calumny and charging Mr. Willes with disingenuity he falls to his wonted way of proving 1. From Sebastian Frank and Twisk whom I neither have at hand nor am obliged to believe in telling me what the Donatists held nor to believe that Mr. D. here so differs from himself as truly to report them Once for all It is usual with Writers to charge the Anabaptists as following the Donatists in Rebaptizing but not in denying Infant-baptism For the Donatists baptized again both Infants and adult And it is like this deceived this temerarious man § 2. Next he repeateth his falshoods of Cresconius Fulgentius Vinc. Victor which I have shewed to be done in great temerity § 3. Thirdly he repeateth his stupendious slander of Austin as with much zeal and fury in many Books opposing the Donatists for denying Infant-baptism of which in them all as far as I can find he hath not one syllable but the clear contrary as is proved by me § 4. Because Eckbertus and Emericus charge the Waldenses herein as conforming to the Donatists and Novatians 1. It was not the Waldenses they spake of as I proved but the Manichean Catharists 2. Or if they confounded them they wronged them 3. And if they say as he reporteth they belied the Donatists and why then should I believe them 4. But this time-robber hath tempted me once more to peruse Eckbertus the Abbot and to read his Serm. 7. and 8. and where-ever this subject is his theam and I find not one syllable of any such matter in him of either Donatists or Novatians such a man have we now to deal with § The rest of his recitals are not worthy the recital The Answer before given is sufficient Only I say again that his contempt of so full a testimony as the Decree of a Council at that time for receiving without rebaptizing such as the Donatists baptized in Infancy cited by Cassander as a certain proof is a proof that there is worse than a weak judgement in fault CHAP. V. His renewed Calumny of the old Brittains reproved § 1. REpeating and defending Fabians foppery he argueth that it could be nothing else in which they are said to contradict the Apostolick Catholick Church Answ 1. If Beda say that Augustine tells them that in many things they do contrary to the Roman Catholick and the Apostolick Church doth it follow that the three things in which he requireth their concurrence were all part of those many To preach the Gospel to the Saxons was one Is that a point that they differed from all the Apostolick Church in When it seemeth to be from no other reason than that they would not own the Saxons that had conquered them nor the Papal power that would usurp upon them And on the same reason they might as well refuse to baptize the Saxons children 2. But there is no such thing in the words of Bede as I have shewed but according to the manner of the Church of Rome c. And who knoweth not that the Church of Rome and all in its communion then called the universal Church used in baptism the White Garment the tasting Milk and Hony and Chrysme as an Apostolical tradition or such as they knew no original of Tertullian and Epiphanius alone are full witnesses of this if there were no more § 2. There is nothing in the rest that I think needeth a word more of answer than I before gave And I fear being guilty of idle words and lost time in writing needlesly CHAP. VI. Of his venturous report of Bishop Ushers censure of me IN his Reply pag. 51. he saith I have an honourable regard to his person and due value to his labours especially where he has laid out himself to promote practical holiness and wherein as I have judged his greatest excellency lies supposing had he let Controversies alone and addicted himself thereto he would much more have furthered the peace and union he pretends to promote It having been as I have heard a judgement that Bishop Usher made of him that if he persisted in Polemical writings he was like to prove a troubler rather than a promoter of peace Here 1. See how he feareth not to make reports of the dead by this hearsay No wonder if by this sort of men I my self am by backbiting so frequently traduced and said to Preach and Print that which never was in my mouth or books or thoughts 2. Should one ask him whom he heard this from do you think we should get a satisfying answer No one is here named 3. It is possible Bishop Vsher upon the coming forth of my Aphorisms which had many crudities and many quarrelled at it more than there was cause might fear any thing that looked like unusual 4. But I ask the Reader whether this be a probable report when he understandeth 1. That I was for some weeks familiar with the Bishop and he never spake a syllable to me of such importance 2. That when Doct. Kendal and I were together with him and our question was what was Augustins jugement of Redemption Perseverance and some other things he expresly averred that my Assertion in all those was the truth 3. But I imagine this following might be the occasion of the report Dr. Kendal had some acquaintance with and interest in the said Arch-Bishop and he having written two disputations against me I had answered the first and had drawn up part of the answer to the second But Mr. Vines and Dr. Kendal desired me to meet at Bishop Vshers lodging in order to the ending of our difference There the Bishop motioned that we should promise to write against each other no more which we did and I cast by what I had begun But yet Doct. K. after in a Latine Treatise broke that promise which occasioned my verses in the end of my Dispute of the Object of Justifying Faith against Mr. Warner which some
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