More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Letter 2 – Letter 4
Richard Baxters Anſwer.
Sir, I mean to ſee more ſaid againſt what I have already written, before I will write any more about Infant Baptiſm, without a more preſſing call than I yet diſcern. I have diſcharged my Conſcience, and ſhall leave you and yours to take your courſe. And indeed I do not underſtand the ſenſe of your Letter, becauſe you ſo joyn two queſtions in one, that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me anſwer to. Whether there were any Ordinances or Law of God that Infants ſhould be Church-members? is one queſtion: Whether this be repealed? is another: you joyn both into one. For the firſt, that Infants were Church-members, as you have not yet denied that I know of, ſo will I not be ſo uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it: And much leſs that you ſhould have the leaſt doubt whether it were by Gods Ordination. There are two things conſiderable in the matter. Firſt, the benefit of Church-memberſhip, with all the conſequent priviledges. It is the work of a grant or promiſe to confer theſe, and not directly of a precept. Secondly, the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God, and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit; and this is the work of a Law or Precept to conſtitute this duty. I am paſt doubt that you doubt not of either of theſe: For you cannot imagine, that any Infant had the bleſſing without a grant or promiſe, (that's impoſſible;) nor that any Parents lay under a duty without an obliging law, (for that is as impoſſible.) Taking it therefore for granted that you are reſolved in both theſe, and ſo yield that ſuch a grant and precept there was, there remains no queſtion but whether it be repealed: which I have long expected that you ſhould prove. For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained, though more may be ſaid than is ſaid, yet I ſhall think it needleſs, till I ſee the ordination contained in thoſe Texts which I have already mentioned to you, proved to be reverſed. Nor do I know that it is of ſo great uſe to ſtand to cite the particular Texts, while you confeſs in general, that ſuch a promiſe and precept there is, by vertue of which, Infants were till Chriſts time duly members of Chriſts Church (for Chriſts Church it was) even his univerſal viſible Church. Still remember that I take the word [law] not ſtrictly for a precept only, but largely, as comprehending both promiſe and precept, and I have already ſhewed you both, and ſo have others.
So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holineſs, I, am willing to ſecond you in, viz. that at the age you deſire people might ſolemnly profeſs their acceptance of Chriſt, and their reſolution to be his: But I hope God will find me better work while I muſt ſtay here, than to ſpend my time to prove that no Infants of believers are within Chriſts viſible Church, that is, are no Infant Diſciples, Infant Chriſtians, Infant Church-members. I know no glory it will bring to Chriſt, nor comfort to man, nor ſee I now any appearance of truth in it. I bleſs the Lord for the benefits of the Baptiſmal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy, and that I was dedicated ſo ſoon to God, and not left wholly in the Kingdom and power of the Devil. They that deſpiſe this mercy, or account it none, or not worth the accepting, may go without it, and take that which they get by their ingratitude. And I once hoped, that much leſs than ſuch an inundation of direful conſequents as our eyes have ſeen, would have done more for the bringing of you back to ſtop the doleful breach that you have made. I am fain to ſpend my time now to endeavour the recovery of ſome of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers, or at leaſt the preventing of others Apoſtaſie: which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches. Which I ſuppoſe will be a more acceptable work with you, than again to write againſt rebaptizing, or for Infant Baptiſm. Sir, I remain your imperfect brother, knowing but in part, yet loving the truth,
Rich. Baxter.
Mr. Tombes his ſecond Letter.
Sir, I confeſs Infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that eſtate of the Jewiſh Paedagogy (not by any promiſe or precept) viſible Church-members, that is, of the Congregation of Iſrael. I do not confeſs that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it ſhould be ſo, but only a fact of God, which is a tranſeunt thing, and I think it were a fooliſh undertaking for me to prove the repeal of a fact. Wherefore ſtill I preſs you that you would ſhew me where that Law, Ordinance, Statute or Decree of God is that is repealable, that is, which may in congruous ſence be either by a later act ſaid to be repealed, or elſe to be eſtabliſhed as a law for ever. This I never found in your books, nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant; and therefore I yet pray you to ſet me down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where that Law is. Which need not hinder you from oppoſing the Quakers (in which I have not and hope ſhall not be wanting) of whom I think that you are miſinformed that they are Anabaptiſts, I think there are very few of them that were ever baptiſed, and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers, as you call them. And I think you do unjuſtly impute the direful conſequences you ſpeak of to the denial of Infant Baptiſm, and to the practice of adult Baptiſm, and that as your ſelf are deceived ſo you miſlead others. I yet expect your Texts, knowing none in any of your Books that mention that law of Infants viſible Church-memberſhip which you aſſert either explicitly or implicitly, and am
Bewdly, April 4. 1655. yours as is meet, John Tombes.
Richard Baxters ſecond Letter.
Sir, If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work, let me requeſt you to tell me fully, exactly and plainly, what tranſient fact you mean, which you conceive without law or promiſe did make Church-members: that ſo I may know where the competition lieth. When I know your meaning, I intend, God willing, to ſend you a ſpeedy anſwer to your laſt.
April 16. 1655. Your fellow-ſervant, Rich. Baxter.