More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Letters 1 · Letter 5 – Section 4
Mr. Tombes his third Letter.
Sir, The tranſeunt fact of God, whereby Infants were viſible Church-members, was plainly expreſt in my laſt to you, to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people, which is the expreſſion of Moſes, Deut. 4.34. Exod. 6.7. And by it I mean that which is expreſſed Levit. 20.24.26. when God ſaid, I have ſevered you from other people, that you ſhould be mine. The ſame thing is expreſſed 1 Kings 8.53. Iſai. 43.1. This I term [fact] as conceiving it moſt comprehenſive of the many particular acts in many generations, whereby he did accompliſh it. Following herein Stephen, Acts 7.2. and Nehem. 9.7. I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Ʋr, Gen. 12.1. to which ſucceeded in their times the enlarging of his family, removing of Lot, Iſhmael, the ſons of Keturah, Eſau, diſtinction by Circumciſion, the birth of Iſaac, Jacob, his leading to Padan Aram, increaſe there, removal to Canaan, to Aegypt, placing, preſerving there, and chiefly the bringing of them thence, to which principally the Scripture refers this fact, Exod. 19.4. Levit. 11.45. Nehem. 1.10. Hoſ. 11.1. the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, giving them laws, ſettling their Prieſthood, tabernacle, army, government, inheritance. By which fact the Infants of the Iſraelites were viſible Church-members as being part of the Congregation of Iſrael, and in like manner though not with equal right (for they might be ſold away) were the bought ſervants or captives, whether Infants or of age, though their Parents were profeſſed Idolaters. And this I ſaid was without promiſe or precept, meaning ſuch promiſe or precept as you 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 ſelfcontradiction (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 the Iſraelites that denomination of [the Congregation of Iſrael] of which Infants were members? For you jumble both together, both cauſes Civil, and Eccleſiaſtical, and of both thoſe that make to the being and well-being. So that our enquiry muſt be, whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the ſame thing in your ſenſe?] and what conſtituteth it formally? For in this you ſpeak in dark ambiguities. The fourth queſtion is, [Whether there was any Law, Ordinance or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein, or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement, and ſo to memberſhip; and any promiſe, grant or Covenant, conferring the right of Church-memberſhip and the conſequent priviledges to Infants?] To this you ſay both Yea and Nay, if I can underſtand you, or at leaſt as to much of the queſtion concerning the being, and part of the effect of the precept and promiſe. Yet you conclude, that you [do not conceive that Infants of Iſrael were made viſible Church-members by the promiſes in the Covenants, or the precepts fore-named, but by Gods tranſeunt fact.] I will not ſuſpect that you imagine any other promiſe doth it beſides that in the Covenant, becauſe your tying the effect to the tranſeunt fact doth exclude them. Here we are caſt upon theſe queſtions next. The fifth queſtion, [Whether there be ſuch precepts and promiſes as you grant, (or as I ſhall prove) which yet make not Infants Church-members?] The ſixth queſtion, [Whether there be any tranſeunt fact of God, which without the efficiency of precept or promiſe did make the Infants of Iſrael Church-members?] The ſeventh queſtion, [Whether thoſe which you have aſſigned be ſuch facts?] The eighth queſtion, [Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or expreſs the ſaid laws, precepts, or grants which I maintain?] this you inſiſt upon. The ninth queſtion, [Whether ſuch laws, preceps or grants as I ſhall prove, are capable of a repal or revocation?] The tenth queſtion, [Whether they are actually revoked or repealed?]
Mr. T's Anſwer. The eighth queſtion is the only queſtion needful to be reſolved, &c.
Reply. If I do too much it is but your paſſing it by, and it will not trouble you.
SECT. IV.
R. B. BEfore all theſe queſtions are well handled, we ſhould eaſily be convinced that it had been better either to have let all alone, or elſe, if we muſt needs have the other bout, at leaſt to have agreed on our terms, and the ſtating of the queſtions better before we had begun. And I think that even that is not eaſie to do. For when I deſired your plain, exact and full explication of one word [tranſeunt fact] and you tell me you have plainly, fully and exactly told me your meaning: It falls out, either through the unhappy darkneſs of my own underſtanding, or yours, that I know but little more of your mind than I did before, and that you ſeem to me to have raiſed more doubts and darkneſs than you have reſolved and diſſipated. Yet being thus far drawn in, I ſhall briefly ſay ſomewhat to the ſeveral queſtions, not following your deſires to anſwer one alone: which cannot be done to any purpoſe while the foregoing are unreſolved, becauſe it is the clearing up of truth, and not the ſerving of your preſent ends in your writings now in hand that I muſt intend.
Mr. T's Anſwer. I affect no more bouts with ſuch a captious wrangler — ſo many doubts ſeem not to be from the darkneſs of the underſtanding, but either from the lightneſs of the fancy, or the bent of the will, to find a way to blunt the Readers attention, &c.
Reply. This is not the Controverſie: Is your judgement alike right of perſons as of Doctrines?