Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Section 3 · Letter 3
Dear Brother,
I Have felt that in my own Soul, and seen that upon my Brethren for these two or three Years last past, which persuadeth me that God is about the healing of our Wounds, having communicated more healing Principles and Affections, and poured out more of the Spirit of Catholick Love and Peace than I have perceived heretofore. Love is arisen and shineth upon the Children of the Day, and your congealed Stiffness begins to vanish, and a Christian Tenderness to succeed. The Prince of Peace erects his Banner, and the Sons of Peace flock in apace. It is a shame to be the last, but a misery to be none. God will bring his divided, distracted Servants nearer together; and it is Pity he should be put to bear down any resisting Saints among the Instruments of Satan, and that any of their Carcasses should be found on the Ground when he conquereth the Enemies of Peace. The Lord is about revealing to his Servants the Error of their Consoriousness, Harshness, Uncharitableness, and Divisions, and how grievously they have wronged him and themselves by departing so far from Christian Love and Unity. He will let them see how much of the Cause was secret and undiscerned; Pride and Self-conceitedness and want of Holy Christian Love, while little was pretended or discerned but Strictness and Obedience. He will shew them more fully wherein the true Nature of Grace and Holy Obedience doth consist, and teach them by the Impress of his Spirit, what he so emphatically commanded them by his Word, to go learn what that meaneth, I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice: It's pity we should not understand the meaning of Words so plain; but it's Sin and Shame as well as Pity that we have studied them no better, after such a Memorandum and Command as this. But many of God's Servants have in the Points of Unity and Peace been like those miserable Souls, that are described to have Eyes and see not, Ears and hear not, Hearts and understand not, (these blessed Precepts of Love and Unity, though none more plain, and frequent, and urgent) for the time was not come that they should be recovered and healed; though this Defection be not in the Essence of Christianity, but the Degrees; nor for Perpetuity, but a Time; yet it's sad that such a Spirit of deadness should so far prevail, that Men inquisitive after Truth, and zealous of Holiness, should least understand the plainest, nearest, frequent Precepts, and so little feel their Obligations to such weighty Duties, that the Lord is pleased to stir upon their Spirit among others, is a great rejoicing to me. And I hope I may tell you, that it is in vain, as I am sure I may tell you it is no small Sin any more to resist and strive against him. If the Hand of our dear and tender Lord be setting you in joint again, shrink not on account of present pain, (much less should you fear the Reproach of being in Communion with the Body) but impartially hearken unto him and yield; but lay by all Tumults of Spirits and Passions, and get out of the Noise of vulgar Clamours; for the Voice of Peace is a still Voice, and in Calmness must be attended unto: And when you are restored, if you find not the Sweetness and Advantages of Peace (if you are indeed restored in Mind as well as Practice) the Lord hath not spoken in this by me. I can hardly think that he that hath raised these Thoughts within you, and begun these Convictions, will let them die. In order to the Ends desired and hoped for, I shall offer you so much of my present Thoughts, as your described Case requires. And 1. though I desire not to dispute the Case of Infant Baptism with you now, yet I may say, we believe you live in a constant Sin against the Lord, in neglecting, denying and opposing it, and that if you will by one erroneous Supposition draw on a Chain of hurtful Consequences, you are the Cause of your own Disorders. At a fitter Season I should desire you but to answer me this one Argument: All that should be sacramentally or solemnly inticed into the Holy Covenant with God, as his People, should be Baptized (or at least be taken as true Members of the Church, and their Entrance just) but the Infants of believing Parents should be sacramentally and solemnly entred into Covenant with God or his People; Ergo, &c. The Minor we give you the abundant Proof of Law and Promise for, before Christ. It was Abraham's Duty and Priviledge according to the Tenour of the Promise which was made with him before the Law, to enter his Children sacramentally and solemnly into the holy Covenant. It was all the Churches Duty after both Jews and Proselytes; both the uncircumcised Females, and the circumcised Males, and all the uncircumcised Church in the Wilderness, Deut. 29, &c. Tell me now how I should answer it before the Lord, if I tell Parents that they are absolved from this Duty of solemn entring their Children into the Covenant, and are divested of the blessed Priviledge; especially when you here tell me well, that you know of none but his Body that Christ is the Saviour of, and that the Church is this Body; Ergo, you know of no Salvation for Infants if they be not of the Church; Ergo, Exclussion would be a heavy Case, shall I say that Christ hath recalled this Law and Grant? but how should I prove it? I shew you the Law and Grant; do you shew me the Repeal, and we have done. Christ never speaks a word to repeal it, nor any of his Apostles. Entring our Children into the holy Covenant, is not a Ceremony. If God say to a Father, why didst thou not dedicate this Child to me, and solemnly enter him into Covenant with me? what can he say? The Precept. Promise and long Practice were plain; was the Repeal also plain? Yes; if it be a Repeal for Christ to take such Children into his Arms, and bless them, and tell us of such is his Kingdom, and to be offended with those that would have kept them from him; and to command that all Disciples be Baptized. He knew well enough when he instituted Baptism, and exercised it first upon the adult, that the Iews did so too with their Proselites: And Ergo, when he did in that no more than they did that yet admitted the Infants of Church-Members, his baptizing the Adult could no more signify his Denial of Infants to be baptized, than the Iews baptizing the Adult could signify it, who at that time baptized Infants also: nor could the Disciples interpret Christ's Doctrine and Will to be contrary to the Iews, when his Practice was no more than theirs: And when he never uttered a Syllable to intimate a Repeal of that great Mercy and Duty of entring Infants solemnly into the Covenant which by God's Appointment had continued so long. And the Covenant was, I will be thy God, and thou shalt be my People. But all this falls in besides my first intent, and therefore I rather expect your Pardon than your regard of it at the present; though time may shew you Light in that which now seems Darkness.
2. But if our Infant Baptism were irregular, how will you prove it a Nullity? never by any sound Argument; every Irregularity is not a Nullity. Whether you take the Word as signifying Faedus Sacramentale, a Sacramental Covenant (as Scripture commonly doth, more notably intending the Covenant than the outward Act) or Sacramentum Faederale a Federal Sacrament or Action, (most notably signifying the Sign or Act) it's all one to our purpose, for Infants are capable of both the Covenant, and the outward Sign, and of all that is essential to Baptism. That they are capable of being entred into Covenant, 1. Nature tells us, we commonly enter them under Princes as their Subjects, and into private Contracts with Landlords for Possessions. 2. The ancient Law, Promise and Practice of the Church before Christ tells us, for then it was actually done by God's Command. And that they are capable of the outward Sign is undeniable. Prove it a Nullity if you can, though it were a Sin.
3. But if both were granted, the Sin and Nullity, I come now to give you my Reasons why it warrants you not to deny Communion with the Churches that were thus Baptized in Infancy. And 1. I beseech you note that Baptism is as necessary, if not much more, to the Admission of Men into the universal visible Church as such. or into a particular Church: Ergo, If Men may be admitted into the universal visible Church without adult Baptism, then he may be admitted into a particular Church without it: But yet here grant that he may be a Member of the universal Church without it: Ergo, Baptism is indeed appointed to be our regular entrance by way of Sacramental Covenant and Investiture into the Church Universal, and not into a particular Church necessarily, though it may be into both, yet it is but indirectly into the particular Church. The Eunuch, and all that were baptized first in any place by the Apostles, were baptized only into the Church universal, and afterward setled in Order under Pastors in particular Churches. Baptism, as such, as it was called our Christening, doth only list Men under Christ as Christians, and if it do any more as to the thing in Question, it is accidentally, and not always, nor necessarily: We are not (directly sure) baptized to our Pastors, and so not to that Particular Church, nothing then is more plain in Scripture than that Baptism was appointed for our Entrance upon our State of Disciples in general: And Ergo, if a Man may be a visible Disciple without it, where it seemeth most necessary, then much more may he be admitted into a particular Church afterward without it, when at least it is no more necessary, and indeed much less, and not at all, save only as universal Church-Member, this is pre-requisite to particular. The Ministers of Christ Baptized 2000 without asking the Consent of any particular Church. 2. They that are under both a Precept making the use of instituted Ordinances their Duty, and a Promise of Acceptance in the Performance, must perform these Duties with belief of their Acceptance: But such are these that you account unbaptized: Ergo, That they are under a Command is plain. All the Precepts for Christian Communion, and not forsaking the assembling of our selves and obeying those that rule over us, &c. are made to the whole visible Church, that hath Opportunity for such Communion, you will not think that our Sin (as you take it) can except us from an Obligation to Duty. But all the Question is, whether such Duty will be accepted if performed by the unbaptized (as you now suppose them) and this you grant, professing your self that you are out of doubt that we are very well accepted of God, and you think that it is accounted for Baptism to us. And if you yield both that we are bound to the Duty, and shall have Acceptance in particular Church Communion, what is it then besides the regularity that you deny? Do you not grant the Cause in Hand? And we have many Promises of Acceptance of Believers in their sincere Endeavours, and all things are pure to the Pure. And if involuntary unavoidable Mistakes shall hinder our Acceptance when we are sincere, then we can never be sure that we are accepted. 3. It is but visibility that is requisite in a Church or Member to make them capable of our Communion. If it be a Communion of Christians as Christians, or Saints as Saints that particular Churches are to hold withal, that consent and are Members of their Churches, then Christianity or visible Sanctity in such Consenters is all that is of Necessity to such Communion: But the Antecedent is plain: As it is as Christians that we must inwardly love one another, so it is as Christians, that we must manifest that Love in holy Communion. Communion is the Demonstration of Love; and all Men must know us to be Christ's Disciples by our loving one another; and therefore if any Man be but a visible Christian, it's plain that he's capable of your Communion (if he cohabits and consent) else it were not formalitur a Communion of Saints or Christians, but of something else: Now you confess that Men are visible Christians that are (to you) unbaptized.
4. There is no such thing as a universal visible Church that is not to use Eucharistical Communion, nor any parts of it that have opportunity. Your similitude of Corporations in a Republick holds in some things, but hath this dissimilitude, that all Christ's Republick should consist of such Corporations, except a Person that is a Merchant Traveller, Embassador, or by some extraordinary Necessity is denied Opportunity: which Rarities are not here of Consideration. And whereas in Republicks, it may be as commodious for rural Villages to be not incorporate, as for Cities to be incorporate, and their Priviledges in their Nation may be as great, and they are not obliged to incorporate, none of this is so in our Case: But every visible Christian (not hindered by Necessity) is bound to incorporate, and charged not to forsake the Assemblies; but all to join and speak the same things and Glorify God with one Mouth, &c. And he that is not a visible Christian, hath no visible Right to our Christian Communion: And he that is a visible Christian and depriveth himself of this Communion sinneth, and wrongeth his own Soul, and as it were, out-laws himself, and is not as you suppose in your Comparison of the not-incorporate: But though in some Cases such may be saved, as deny instituted Communion and Worship, or neglect it, yet they do so far put themselves into the State of those without.
5. Your Opinion sets up a new kind of Church, or Christian Assemblies and Communion of such as may only hear and Pray, and not have Eucharistical Communion and be under Church-Guidance: Shew us any such in Scripture if you can.
6. Heathens or Infidels are called to a natural Worship of God: Ergo, visible Christians are called to more.
7. Faith it self hath its Office formally by Institution, though its aptitude thereto be in the Nature of the thing. And if the Gospel it self be supernatural, and our Christianity and Faith an instituted thing, as well as Sacrament and Governors, and so the universal visible Church an Institution as well as a particular, then certainly want of Baptism will no more keep a visible Christian out of the particular instituted Church, than out of the universal; because as to the Point of Institution there is no such Reason as can make a Difference.
8. The great and excellent part of Church Communion is that which you call natural Worship as performed by Believers, in the loving God in Christ and admiring and magnifying his Love, in the Riches of the Grace of Redemption, and seeking with all Saints to comprehend it, hearing his Counsels and Commands, praying for his Grace and Glory, and praising and magnifying him in Faith, and Hope, and Love, with our Eye upon the second Coming of our Lord. And that which you call Instituted Order and Worship, is but the means to this, and without this but a Shell: It is subservient to it. And therefore
1. They that are capable of the greater, are capable of the less. Heathens are bound to meer natural Worship, and their Hearing and Praying is another thing, and Obligation and Capacity differ.
2. They that must do the work, must do it in God's way, and by his means. The great internal Worship is as the Soul, and the external as the Body, which are to be distinguished, but not separated. Must one sort of Christians have the Soul of holy Communion without the Body, and carry the Knife naked, while you deny them the Sheath?
9. If a Member of the Universal visible Church, as such, is pro tempore to be admitted to Communion in all Ordinances with any particular Church where they come, then these that you acknowledge such visible Members, must by you be so admitted, and so are capable of Communion in instituted Ordinances, but the Antecedent is true beyond Dispute. None of the Apostles were Members of particular Churches, but were as Itinerants to do their work in many Countries: so was it with abundance of Itinerant Preachers of those times called their Companions and Fellow Labourers and Helpers: as Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Silus, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Apollos, &c. When Paul came to Troas, Acts 20. he and all his Company are admitted among the Disciples in breaking Bread, and that not as Members of any particular Church, but as Christians. Some Christians are lawfully excused, and necessarily deprived of stated Church-Membership in a particular Church (as Princes Ambassadors, that may spend their Lives in motion and action in several places, &c.) And shall all these Christians be deprived of actual Communion, Sacraments, &c. in the Places where they come, because they are uncapable of any fixed station. Yea, when perhaps it may be the Work or Cause of God that is the Cause of their unsettledness.
10. Dare you undertake to exempt all, but those that you judge Baptized, from the frequent Precepts of knowing those that are over them in the Lord, and submitting themselves, and esteeming them highly in love for their work sake, and being at peace among themselves, 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. and from giving double honour to the Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 17. and obeying those that rule over them, &c. Hebr. 13. 7, 17. All Christians that have opportunity are bound to submit to and obey their Guides and Pastors, and that cannot be statedly, but in a particular Church. And then if you look to the beneficial part, it's plain, that when Christ ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men, it was for the perfecting of the Saints, and the work of the Ministry, and edifying of the Body of Christ, even that Pastors and Teachers were given, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man, Ephes. 4. 9, 11, 12, 13. And will you exclude twenty, if not five hundred parts of the Church from this (all this) benefit of Pastors and Teachers, when Christ provided them for all? Consider what you do?
11. The Unity of the Catholick Body, and their commanded correspondency requireth a Fellowship with all the Parts according to opportunity. From Christ the whole Body fitly joyned together (or jointed, which is by Officers, Order, and Love) and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, (when you exclude a hundred, or many hundred parts from their Communion) maketh increase of the Body to the edifying of it self in love, (not only secret, unknown love, but love appearing in Communion) Ephes. 4. 16.
12. Excommunication out of particular Church-Communion, in instituted Ordinances, is a grievous Censure, and never inflicted on the holy Servants of Christ, that never wilfully resist or reject his Truth or Precepts. No nor on Offenders, but for impenitency, or grievous Crimes. Durst you Excommunicate me out of your Church, if I were in it, and professing my owning of Baptism, and my hearty longing to know and obey the will of Christ. There is many an honest humble Christian in this Town (that I conjecture you may know and deal for) that if you should cast out, on such an account, I am confident infinite Love would be offended with you, and say you have toucht the Apple of mine Eye. Inasmuch as you cast out these my Members, you did that which was too like casting out me. And sure you must cast them out upon your grounds, if they were in your Church, because you judge them uncapable of a station and communion with you, and judge your selves bound to separate from such.
13. You seem to exalt an outward Act even when the heart disclaims it, before a heart that is right with God, without the Act. For if you had one twice or thrice Baptized in your Church that afterward disclaimed it, and owned none but his Infant Baptism, what would you do with this Man? If you would retain him, you would lay more stress on a disclaimed outward Action, than on the Life of Grace. If you would reject him, then it seems you judge not the Baptism and Entrance, which you suppose right, to be enough in Fact and Existence, but you think a belief of its Necessity necessary, and so you put it among the Credenda, and not the Agenda only, when it was never in the Churches Creed. For if it be a necessary Article of Faith, they must perish that reject it.
14. Paul, and other Penmen of the Scripture, telling us of many greater Errours than the thing you oppose, doth not require an avoiding of the Communion of the Erroneous, yea commandeth us to receive them that are weak in the faith, but not to doubtful Disputations, Rom. 14. 10. and dare you reject a strong Believer upon a doubtful Disputation?
15. Search, observe, and judge whether the abundant earnest Precepts for Special Love, and Company, and Endearedness of Saints, as Saints, (I could soon fill a Sheet with pertinent Citations) will possibly consist with your rejecting them from special Communion and Separating from them. Is this the appearance of your honouring them that fear the Lord, Psal. 15. and your Loving the Brethren, and that with a pure heart fervently. Can all Men know you by this to be Christ's Disciples? Communion is but the expression of this special Love, and holy Improvement of each other for God and our mutual Benefit. As he contradicts himself that saith, He loveth God and hateth his Brother, so doth he that saith he loveth his Brother and yet separateth from him, or rejecteth him (and most such on Earth) for an unavoidable infirmity. If you that are strong (or think so) are bound to bear the Infirmities of the weak, then not to Excommunicate them, Rom. 15. 1. Though this Body hath some Parts which we think less honourable, yet must there be no Schism in it, but the Members must have the same care one of another as Suffering, being honoured and rejoycing together, 1 Cor. 12. 24, 25, 26. nor must one part say to another, I have no need of thee, nor cut it off from the Communion of the Body. The general command of Love, Company, Familiarity, Edifying, and Admonishing one another, comprehends the Means in which this Communion must be held, or will not be fulfilled in rejecting such Persons.
16. When you are in doubt between two Difficulties, the clearest and greatest Truth should prevail against the less. But much more when on one side there is great weight and no difficulty; and on the other, much difficulty and far less weight; the uncertain smaller Point should give place to the greater, and more certain. But it is of clearest certainty and greatest weight, that we dearly love the Saints as Saints, and use them as Saints, and have Communion with them as Saints: But you are not so sure that you must not reject almost all the Saints on Earth for want of your season of Baptism, nor hath God laid weight by Promise upon such a Duty, or by a Threatning driven you to it, (but contrarily condemned it as a sin).
17. Doth not your Cause plainly bear an Image contrary to that of God? Love is likest him that is Love. Charity covereth infirmities, and thinketh no evil, and shall we find them (and make them) in our Brethren? Christ gathereth, and will you scatter? he reconcileth and uniteth, and will you divide? he justifieth, and will you be he that shall condemn? Even them that are in Christ Jesus? who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit; and all for want of delaying Baptism till your time, when in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth nothing nor uncircumcision, but the New Creature and Faith that worketh by Love. Have you mark'd how Unity and Love is inculcated in the New Testament, and that as Omnipotency is most eminently engraven upon the Creation, and Wisdom on the Laws of God, so Goodness is most eminently engraven on the Redeemer, and that in this Glass the Father in his Love and Goodness must be known, and hereby the Impress and Image of Love must be made upon our Souls. They that are least for Love and holy Unity, are least like God, and least for him, and most like his Enemy and ours.
18. Christ is both King, Prophet, and Priest, and no one is sincerely related unto him in any of these respects, but is related to him in all: And Ergo, all Christians are to be under his Church-Government and Protection in his Family, as well as under his Teaching. If they are by your own confession Fellow Citizens of the Saints, and of the houshold of God, do not disfranchise them, nor deny them their Priviledges.
19. Will not your Principles lead to narrowness of holy Charity in Communication of worldly Goods, and destroy Christian Communion in this? Those that were in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship in breaking of Bread and Prayer, (not through levelling, but charitable Community) had all things as common: sure you will refuse this when you refuse Communion in Sacrament: you will on the same ground think that those few only of your Opinion are to partake of this Special Communication: For the Reason is the same.
20. Contrary to the Spirit and Scope of the Gospel, you lay greater stress upon the very timing of a holy Ceremony, than under the Law was laid upon the being of the Ceremony it self. Women had Communion without Circumcision. The Males in the Wilderness did hold all holy Communion, even in the Passover, without Circumcision. To all this, let me add these few Questions to you.
1. Do you think, in the most humble frame of your Soul, that you have no failing as great as you suppose the mis-timing of our Baptism to be; and would you be rejected for it?
2. Is this norrowness of special loving Communion answerable to the Principles of Universal Redemption and Grace, wherein I suspect you go beyond me?
3. Have you well considered that God's Unity is the first of his Attributes next his Being? The Lord our God is one God. And so the Unity of the Church is next the very Essence of it, so to be regarded and maintained: The Unity cannot be destroyed without destroying the Essence; and therefore many Truths and Duties must be put behind the Churches Unity, when accidentally the use of them is made inconsistent with it.
4. It hath been the common frame of the Church since the Apostles days, till of late, to consist of a mixture: one half baptized at Age, (being converted at Age from Infidelity, and their Baptism before neglected) and the other half that were born of Christian Parents baptized in Infancy: And both sorts lived in Peace and Love: and no Church History, that ever I read, doth give us any the least intimation that ever these two Sorts disagreed hereupon, or accused one anothers way, or made it any occasion of a Division. And will you advance Knowledge and Holiness in the end of the World, by advancing Uncharitableness and Division.
5. Bethink you with sobriety, as before the Lord, if you had lived in the Church in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Century, or lower, in all which (though many were baptized at Age, being not Christians by any Infant Covenant yet) no Writer that ever I saw doth tell us of one Church, or one Pastor, no nor of one Man that was a Catholick Christian, (no nor of one Heretick that I remember) that was against the lawfulness of Infant Baptism; I say, if you had then lived, would you have separated from all the Churches on Earth? What! from the Universal Church in your Communion? or would you have had all these Ages have laid by all instituted Church Order and Worship? The consequences of this would rise so high, that I will not name them to you. Only I would further ask you,
6. If you think their Baptism a Nullity? and consequently the instituted Churches, Ministry, Order, Sacraments, Nullities, that were used in all those Ages (the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, &c.) when almost none but such as were baptized in Infancy were Church Members; how far then do you differ from the Seekers that tell us, All these were lost in the Apostacy? 2. And how easily will a Papist trample you in the dirt, and laugh you to scorn, when he puts you to prove Successive Church, and Ordinances, and Ministry? 3. And what advantage give you the Infidels, and our own Remnants of Infidelity, to deny the Head by so far denying the Body?
7. Would you have a Unity, and do you ever expect such a thing or not? If not—If you do, on what terms do you expect it? You can never with the least Encouragement of Reason expect that all should deny Infant Baptism, and come to you. These late years have given you as much advantage as you can well expect, and yet you see the most of the Godly dare not come to you. If therefore you will neither come to them in Judgment, nor yet close in Communion with Christians of different Judgment, what do you but give up Unity as desperate, and fix in your divided State.
8. And will you give the Papist Disputants so much Encouragement, as to confess to them, that among us there is not any hopes of Unity, or loving Christian Church Communion. I have been longer than I intended upon these Reasonings: but it is because I would not neglect you, but some one of them at least may stick upon you, of which success (your lives declaring you so honestly, impartially, and happily disposed to Love and Peace) I make no doubt. And now to your Objections, which should have been my whole Task, but that I would make sure the Issue.
And 1. to your first Argument, I answer, 1. It is against you, and overthrows your Cause: for as ordinarily Women were admitted to the Passover, without Circumcision, but not without the Covenant: and as in extraordinary Cases offered (as of all Israel 40 years in the Wilderness) the Males also were admitted uncircumcised, so much more may it be now in case of Baptism.
2. Either the Ordinances and Examples of the Jews about Circumcision, afford us Arguments for regulating our Baptism and Communion, or not: If not, then you urge them in vain: If they do, then they prove the Duty, if not the Necessity of Infant Baptism.
3. Ceremonies have not so much laid on them under the Gospel, as under the Law. Mercy before Sacrifice is the Gospel Canon.
Ad 2m, 2. That Command Matth. 28. commandeth the baptizing of Disciples: I doubt not but it commandeth thereby the baptizing of Infants, who are Disciples, and made Disciples, while proselyted Parents enter them into the Covenant of God, according to his express unrepealed Law and Promise.
2. But suppose it did not command Infant-Baptism; nay, suppose it had consequentially forbidden it, it proves no more than that it is a sin, not a nullity.
3. But suppose it had made it a Nullity, how are you guilty of other mens omission of Baptism by holding Communion with them, when you may at your Enterance declare your dissent from them in that point. Your Argument would lead you to avoid Communion with all Churches in the World, even the re-baptized, that held not all that you take to be the Institutions of Christ: because you are bound to hold them. But when you have leave to do your own Duty, if you will shun all that you think do not theirs, you will abhor Catholicism.
Ad 3m, 1. As to Iohn 3. 5. doubtless that Text speaks of more than the visible Church, even the Mystical and the Triumphant. And therefore if you will from thence exclude Infants from Baptism, and the visible Church, you must needs shut them all out of Heaven, but Christo dissentiente, you shall have none of Christ's consent.
2. It is both Water as the sign, and the holy Covenant and Cleansing of the Soul, as the thing signified, that are convincingly meant in the Text. But how? one only as a sign, and the other as the thing signified: and therefore not as equally necessary in point of means, though equally commanded. Alas, how easily understand we such Speeches among Men. If a General say to the Rebels (I will spare none of you that will not come and list himself under me) every Body will understand, that becoming a Soldier (and the Military Engagement or Sacrament, as the Oath was anciently called) is the thing here signified to be absolutely necessary: and the Listing or Colours, but as a sign for Order, and in Cases of Necessity dispensable, and regarded but in order unto the thing signified. Your Arguments from personal Inconveniencies are none.
Ad 1m, 1. Do not you startle to hear the Catholick Church called the World? and a retirement into its Communion, called a Returning to the World? I have read (Come out from among them) that is, the World; but not (Come out of the Catholick Church).
2. And do you not startle to hear them call their way Strictness, and the other Loosness? If they mean a sinful strictness, so every Vice, or many, may have a strictness. Malice hath a strictness, and Covetousness and Oppression hath a strictness, and Superstition hath a strictness. But if they mean it of a holy strictness, are not they the strictest that are likest to Christ, and most conformable to his Will, and most accurate in their Obedience? And is not Love the new and great Commandment? Are not your People loose that are so far from holy Love and Catholick Communion. God is Love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God. They are strict then in opposing God, and the Unity or sweet Communion of the Members of the Lord. Is it an honour to be strict Sinners and Destroyers of the Church and Holy Love? Let some take heed, least they be too strict to come into Heaven among so many Millions of Souls that never owned any but Infant Baptism (which is, I think, since Christ many hundred to one, that is there, that never were against Infant Baptism) whether do you think Christ or the Pha…isees were the stricter, when they condemned him for eating with Publicans and Sinners, and his Disciples for breaking the ears of Corn, and him for Sabbath-breaking, &c. Sure he more accurately observed his Father's will, even the blessed Rule of Love and Mercy, though they were more superstitious and strict, was it the weak, or the strong Christians, Rom. 14. & 15. that were the stricter about meats, and drinks, and days? The weak superstitiously, but the strong did more strictly adhere to the Law of Christ. Do you think that Man that shall say Christ died but for half the Saints themselves, to be ever the better for that strict Opinion? If you are for such forbidden strictness of Practice, why do you not answer it in your Opinions about Grace? &c.
2. You have cause to be much humbled before the Lord for bringing your People into this Snare and Misconceit, and ergo should not be guilty of continuing them in it, nor make the fruit of your Sin an Argument to go on Impenitently.
3. So great a Truth and Duty as Christian Catholick Love and Communion, is not to be bawked for fear of danger. Tell you of it plainly, and trust God with the Issue. It's doubt, those that will turn Quakers, that is Infidels, or near, rather than be reduced to Catholick Love and Communion, are never like to come to good, if you keep them where they are. It's a fearful thing that any Man should think the better of his Spiritual state, because he flieth furthest from the Catholick Love and Communion of Saints, that is, from the Church, from Christ, from God, from Heaven.
Ad 2m, Your Communion with differing Saints, is not a sinning against your Opinion about Baptism, nor a leaving your station. You may own your way, and yet own Catholick Communion.
Dear Brother, I think the Lord of Love and Peace is laying hands on you, and will have you away out of your dangerous Schisms into the Paths of Love and Peace. It is Uncharitableness and Separation that hath made the Rebaptized so odious throughout the World. Love breedeth Love, as Heat breedeth Heat. The Christian Charity that appeareth in your Lives, I sensibly feel draws out my own Heart in love to you. All God's Saints will love you, if you will but turn into the way of Love. I hear that the Rebaptized in Ireland, that grew to the reputation of Turbulent in their height, begin now to be thought more peaceable and tolerable than some others there, that being lately in the Saddle, possessed their Prosperity and unquietness. O! if days of Persecution come, it will cut your hearts to think how you have refused Communion with your Brethren in days of Peace. If we all lay our Heads and Hearts and Hands together for God's Church and Cause, it will be too little. My motion to you is, That you will joyn with us for a Brotherly Agreement between the Men of your mind and ours: The Articles shall be but these three.
1. That all that can, being satisfied in Conscience with their being Rebaptized, shall continue loving Communion in the Church.
2. That those that cannot be brought to this, but will hold separated Churches, shall acknowledge us true Churches, and profess their Brotherly Love and distant Communion.
3. That we all agree on some Rules for the peaceable management of our Differences, without hardning the Wicked, ensnaring the Weak, hindering the Gospel, and wronging the common Truths which we are agreed in. If this motion take with you, I will send you a Form of such Agreement: and get as many as you can of your way to Subscribe it; and the Associated Ministers of this County, I doubt not, will Subscribe it; and we will do our parts to lead the World to Peace. Seek God's direction, and return your Resolution to
Your faithful Brother, Rich. Baxter. Novemb. 6. 1658.
To Mr. William Allen.