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
had an Husband and not fewer Gal. 4.25 26 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise even that promise which extended to the Infants with the Parents Gal. 4.28 Mr. T. I conceived a Promise not in congruous sense repealable For although a promise be a Law to the Promiser yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed 'T is true the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth but that cannot be repealed that which is done cannot be infectum not done Reply I perceive we must dispute our first principles as well as our Baptism Reader Gods promise in question is not a particular promise to some one person only but his Recorded Instrument of Donation or stablished written or continued word which is the sign of his will It is the same thing which is called the Premiant or Donative part of his Law in one respect and his Testament in another and his Donation or Gift in another and his Covenant as Conditional in another and his Promise in another As He that believeth shall be saved is the Rewarding or Giving part of a Law and it is a Testament a Covenant a Promise a Gift all these Mr. T. cannot see how this promise can be repealed what not an universal promising Law or Covenant or Instrument The question is not whether it ever was repealed but whether it be repealeable in congruous sense Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth such and such hurtful creatures a Fox c. or that killeth an enemy in war shall have such a reward and repeale this Law or Promise when he seeth cause I think the first Covenant ceased by mans sin without repeal But I cannot say that no promise to the Israelites was repealed upon their sin The non-performance of the condition depriveth the party of the benefit while it is unrepealed but may not God thereupon repeal the Law or Covenant and null the very offer to posterity Is it not so as to the Jews policie and peculiarity What pains is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove the change of the Covenant as faulty in comparison of that which had better promises But if you will call it a meer cessation all is one as to our question in hand SECT XCVIII R. B. BEfore I end I shall be bold to put two or three Questions to you out of your last Letter Quest 1. Whether the circumcised servants of Israel sold away to another nation and so separated from the Civil state of Israel did eo nomine cease to be Church-members though they forsook not God And so of the Infants if they were sold in Infancy If you affirm it then prove it If you deny it then Infants might be Church-members that were not of the Common-wealth Mr. T. None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Common-wealth Reply But my Question was when without forsaking God they are forcibly separated from the Jewish policy and subjected to others are they not members of the Church-universal still though not of the Jews SECT XCIX R.B. Quest 2. IF as you say it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off or not who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem which came to be a Patriarchal seat Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jews Church-members in Infancy If no then it was somewhat else than unbelief that broke them off Mr. T. They were broken off from the Jewish Church not by unbelief but by faith in Christ Reply This is too short an answer to so great an evidence against you The Infants of the Christian Jews were the day before their Conversion members of the Jewish Church and of Gods universal Church of which the Jews were but a part For as he that is a member of the City is a member of the Kingdom and a part of a part is a part of the whole so every member of the Jews Church was a member of Gods universal Church Now 1. The very Jews policy totally ceased not till the destruction of Jerusalem at least 2. But if it had I ask was it no mercy to be a member both of the Jews Church and the universal If not the Jews lost nothing by being broken off If yea how did the Christians Children forfeit it Was it better to be of no visible Church than of the universal The Jews were broken off by unbelief you say Christians Infants were put out of that and the whole visible Church by faith or without unbelief SECT C. R. B. Quest 3. WHether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews but to bring in Gentiles breaking down the partition-wall and making of two one Church would have such a Linsey Woolsey Church of party colours or several forms so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have Infant members and the Church at Rome should have nonel Jews Infants should be members and not Genties Mr. T. so answereth as before and needeth no other Reply SECT CI. R. B. Quest 4. IF unbelief brake them off will not repentance graff them in And so should every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-members Mr. T. Not their Infants Reply Then it would be but a part of the people that would be graffed in SECT CII R. B. Quest 5. WAs not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual and gathered in a spiritual way Mr. T. The invisible was the visible Jewish Nation was not Reply Not in comparison of the times of maturity but the visible Jewish frame had the Father of spirits for Soveraign and commanded spiritual duties upon promises of spiritual blessings even life Eternal SECT CIII R. B. Quest 6. HOw prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame that Infants were members Or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age Mr. T. It was a more imperfect state in that and other regards Reply I called for some proof that the Infant-membership was any part of the Church-imperfection If it be not a blemish why must it be done away what was the Church the worse for Infants Rights SECT CIV R. B. Quest 7. IN what regard is the new frame bettered by casting out Infants which were in the old Mr. T. The Church is more spiriâ—ual Reply What doth Infants Relation detract from its spirituality The adult have souls and bodies and so have Infants The adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves as they make for their Infants The adult blemish the Church with more carnal sins than Infants do The Kingdom would be never the more spiritual nor excellent if all Infants were disfranchised Nature teacheth all Kingdoms on earth to take them for members though but Infant-members SECT CV R. B. Quest 8. WHether any Jew at age was a member of the
may see in Fulgentius's life But what is all this to Infant-baptism § 51. Next he tells us that in the ninth Century Hincmarus Laudunens was against Infant-baptism and reciteth many words of Hincmarus Rhenensis to him Answ The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl To. 2. containing 55. Chapters And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this about a Village in the other Pariâ—h whom it should pay Tythes to habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes sine baptismate quot homines sine Communione inde obierunt quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles ne postea tibi improperarem at si alia mala de me scires illa etiam de me diceres Reader is here a syllable against Infant-baptism Who was the accuser here What is in the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused And are we therefore against Infant-baptism Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it § 52. Reader the truth is I am so weary of this work that I cannot perswade my self to follow it any further it is so sad and loathsom a business that is set before us fitter to be wept over than answered at large I shall yet take notice of what he saith of the Waldenses and to that further say 1. That I have elsewhere vindicated them already from this slander 2. That so do many of their bitter adversaries in laying no such thing to their charge Among whom to what is said elsewhere I add but the Testimony of Nauclerus a Popish bitter enemy to them who Vol. 2. part 2. pag. 265. reciteth their Doctrine as being agreeable with the body of Doctrine held in the Reformed Churches never mentioning any denial of Infant-baptism but only that they affirmed Water to be sufficient without Oyl AND now as to our Testimonies for the Common practice of Infant-baptism from the daies of the Apostles I will not abuse the Reader by reciting again the testimonies long ago recited Let him but consider what I have there said out of Justin Irenaeus Origen Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Augustin and others and I leave the matter to his Judgement § 53. And further where they feign Nazianzen to be indifferent I will add but these words out of his Orat. 40. vol. 1. p. 648. Ed. Morel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou an Infant Let not naughtiness surprize him first Let him be sanctified from his Infancy Let him be consecrated to the spirit from his Infancie But dost thou fear the seal because of the weakness of his nature How weak a minded mother art thou and of how little faith But Hannah c. Thou hast no need of Amulets and Inchantments with which the wicked one creepeth into the minds of vain men stealing to himself the veneration due to God Give him the Trinity that great and excellent Amulet That all this is spoken of Baptism is past all doubt Yet Nazianzen in some cases admitteth of delay till three years old But took baptism to be so necessary for Infants that he thought that if any though by surprize and not the Parents contempt should die unbaptized they should not goe to Heaven or be Rewarded though he thought they should not go to Hell or be punished Ib. Orat. 40. His opinion therefore for delay three years in case of safety consisted with too much apprehension of its necessity even to Infants § 54. When I read his language of holy Cyprian I confess the apparition of so frightful a spirit doth affright me from his doctrine First The man with greater audaciousness than the Papists use the Fathers doth first attempt against all consent of antiquity and without any proof to question the truth of the sentence of Cyprian and the Carthage Council to Fidus. Secondly And what could he say more to betray the Protâ—stant Cause to the Papists than as after Either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined or that he himself was a notable Factor for Antichrist and that in him the mystery of iniquity did very strongly work The man it seems had never read Jeremy Stephens his Edition of Cyprian de unit Eccl. and how those few words of Peter and the Church of Rome were added by Corrupters though he is willing to believe in the general that his writings were corrupted But we have certain Copies at least of so much of them as confute his Cause I remember our great Antiquary Bishop Vsher told me that it was Tertullian and Cyprian that he took for the Chief Records of Church Antiquities next a few small things which give little information of matters of fact And some of the things that this man so starteth at Cyprian held and as Epiphanius saith All the Christian Churches And must he then be a Factor for Antichrist Who then is this Man a Factor for Mark Reader whether it be any wonder if I be abhominable and Antichristian to him when Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops with him must come under hypothetically that suspicion 1. That Cyprian who was so holy and wise a man 2. That lived before Antichrist was born 3. That died a Martyr for Christ 4. Who is so great a part of the pure antiquity that if you cast him away what will the rest be for a great time 5. That Cyprian who is called by some the first Anabaptist because he was for rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks 6. That Cyprian who so stifly opposed the Bishop of Rome though himself was in the error 7. That Cyprian whom the Donatists boasted of as their predecessor in rebaptizing and Austin was put to answer though with his honour 8. That Cyprian who lived before any Christian Emperor when strict discipline upheld religion without and against the Magistrates sword and who wrote so many of his Epistles only for the rigor of Church-discipline O whâ—t pleasure is this to Papists If we be but such Antichristians say they as holy Cyprian and the primitive Churches were we will prefer it before the Anabaptists Christianity § 55. And if Cyprian was Antichristian where then was the Church of Christ It will be hard to answer Papist or Seeker about its visibility or Infidel about its reality And what a King do they make Christ that make him to have no Kingdom that they can prove to have been existent § 56. We will easily grant him that Cyprian de unit Eccl. is abused by the Papists and the very words thrust in are proved so to be by many Copies that have them not Yea Jeremy Stephens saith that there are