Review of the State of Christians Infants, Tract
TO Mr. E. HVTCHINSON.
SIR,
WHen I read you general Accuſation of my Firey diſcouraging of Reprovers, &c. I began to bethink me who they were in all my life time that had to my face reproved me, and been diſcouraged by any unthankful paſſionate returns of mine; and not remembring any one in my life, (unleſs you will call my Contradicting men in diſputation and Altercation in caſe of differences of Judgment by that name) I did read on, in expectation of fuller information, and I perceived that it was not any verbal rejecting any reproof of my preſent Monitors, that you meant, but my publiſhed Writings againſt thoſe called Anabaptiſts. I have long had far lowder calls than yours to Review my Life and Writings, and to judge of them as impartially as I can. Upon the Review I am Conſcious, 1. That I never meddled at firſt with Mr. Tombes, till he unavoidably conſtrained me, by ſending thoſe whom he had prevailed with to me, to tell me, that if I would not anſwer him, they muſt lay their change ſo far on my refuſal to ſatisfie them. We lived to gether till then, without any meddling with the difference by me.
2. I find that when he had (without my conſent) publiſhed theſe Papers which I privately ſent him, with his Anſwer, I gave not a word of Reply to them, till Mr. Danvers made it ſeem neceſſary to me, though it be above 20 years ſince they were written. Surely my ſilence was no furious Contradiction.
3. I find that when Mr. Tombes publiſhed them ſo long ago, and they have been in your own hands in Mr. Tombes his Book, neither you nor others till now that I know of, ſhewed me any ſuch fury in them. And thoſe that I have ſpoke with ſay, that there is no ſuch thing, but that his Reply is paſſionate, (which I leave to others judgment that yet may read them in his Book together.)
4. I find that in 1659. when I endeavoured to perſwade Mr. Lambe and Mr. Allen to Chriſtian Concord, that I did not ſtrive againſt their Anabaptiſtry, but only to ſatisfie them, that holding that difference, they yet ought to ſatisfie themſelves, in that which they took to be their Duty, and to hold loving Communion with the Churches and Chriſtians of the other mind. And when they had renounced their Separation, it was not I but their own Light, Experience and Conſideration (by what other helps I know not) that made them Renounce their Anabaptiſtry.
5. When before that, there was a Treaty in London for the Reconciling of the Presbyterians & Iudependents, I did firſt at home to the Miniſters of Worceſterſhire, mantain by a ſet Diſputation, that it was our Duty to ſeek Peace and Communion with the Anabaptiſts; and after ſent up the Terms of that deſired Concord to London, to Mr. Allen, who at ſome Meetings for that purpoſe, told me the buſineſs went hopefully on, till the Confuſions in 1659. diſturbed and overthrew all.
6. I have above 20 years in Print and Pulpit frequently told the Churches, that they are greatly beholden to Gods Providence in permitting the Anabaptiſts to call us ſo lowd to the ſerious confideration of of our Baptiſm; and that if thoſe that were Baptized in Infancy be not brought to as ſerious underſtanding, and reſolved a renewing of that Covenant, as if they had never been Baptiſed before, yea and paſs not out of the ſtate of Infant Church-memberſhip into that of the Adult, by a ſolemn tranſltion in owning of their Covenant, theſe Church Corruptions will be continued which are the Scandal and Temptation of the Anabaptiſts. And to that end I wrote a Treatiſe of Confirmation.
7. I have Printed in this laſt Book (recited by Mr. Barret in the end of his Queres) ſuch an Offer of Brotherly Concord with the Anabaptiſts, (ſuppoſing our continued difference in that point) even the very words of ſuch a Profeſſion on which both parties may with mutual forbearance live in brotherly Love and Communion, as never any man did to me accuſe either of Rigor, Unlawfulneſs, or Inſufficiency to that end. And if you reſolve that you will have no Communion with any in the world, but thoſe that are of your Opinion againſt Infant-Baptiſm, your Communion will be narrower than mine, and ſuch talk as this of yours is never like to draw me to your mind.
8. I have many years inſiſted more upon the terms (and improvement) of our Baptiſmal Covenant, as containing that very Touch-ſtone, or ſtate of Evidence, by which both our ſincere Grace, and our right to Church-Communion muſt be tryed, than any man that I know of; of which my Family Book is a full proof.
9. To the Reconciling of men herein, I have oft ſhewed, that If our Childrens part in the Covenant of Grace upon their Parents dedication of them to God, …nd ſo their Church-memberſhip, were but yielded, the reſt (whether they ſhould actually be Baptized with Water) would be much leſs cauſe of our diſtance and alienation, than on both ſides it is uſually judged. Yea, if the Anabaptiſts would but ſay, [I Dedicate this Child to God, as far as he hath given me power, and heartily deſire that God may be his Father, Chriſt his Saviour; and the Holy Ghoſt his Sanctifier:] And did ever any of you prove this to be a ſin? And we are ready on our part to profeſs that [Infant-Baptiſm will ſave none at age that conſent not to the ſame holy Covenant.]
10. I have oft told the world that though the Ancient Churches denyed not their Childrens part in the Covenant of Grace, nor their right to Pardon and Salvation, and Infaut Church memberſhip by that Covenant, yet the Time when Children themſelves ſhould be ſolemnly Baptized, was left in the Churches for above 200 years to every ones free choice; ſome (and the moſt Chriſtians) uſually Baptizing them quickly, and others thinking as Tertullian, that it would bind them faſter if they ſtayed ſomewhat longer; or, as Nazianzene thought, till they were three or four years old: even as one that hath right to a Crown in his Infancy, may have his Coronation performed either then, or afterward.
11. I have oft told the world that I would have this liberty and moderation again revived, and that I would have no Anabaptiſt perſecuted or excommunicated for that his Opinion.
12. I never perſecuted any of them, nor perſwaded any to do it; nor never endeavoured to hurt them, nor denyed them any good that I could do them; (though I told you truly that even they of Mr. T's. Church that had ſeemed my old Friends, ſought my life or ruine, by way-ſaying a man that told them he carryed Letters of mine, violently taking them from him and carrying them up to London to the Council, to Sir H. V. &c.)
This is the account that my Reviewing Conſcience giveth me of my dealing with the Anabaptiſts, with whom to this day I ſtill plead for Love and peaceable Communion upon terms of mutual forbearance: And whether it be holy Patience and Humility that takes this for Fire and Fury, and cannot bear it, conſider.
But yet Fury and Folly you copiouſly exclaim againſt, and call me to Repent: I thank you unfeignedly for that honeſt wholſome word [Repent] whether well or ill applyed. But your many ſcornes at my Repentings ſcarce well agree with the invitation. Were I like to have Life and Leiſure for ſuch a work, I would reſolve to Review all my Writings juſt in the method that Auſtin did, and to tell the Readers what I diſlike in them; which having no reaſon to expect, I have ſo dealt already with thoſe that moſt needed it, and corrected others in the later Impreſſions. If you need no Repentance, and have written as much as I, and that without any fault, you have been happier than I. And yet I intend not to give over Writing, Preaching, Praying, praiſing God, or Conference with men, becauſe I cannot do any of them innocently, in a manner that needed no Repentance.
But upon the full peruſal of your Letter, I muſt ſay, I never had a more Wordy, Windy, Empty Invitation to Repentance, that I remember in my life. I looked ſtill when the fault was told me, and ſome words at leaſt named that were guilty of the folly or firyneſs mentioned; or ſome of my particular ſins proved, that I might be convinced: I looked to find ſome one Argument of my Books confuted and proved vain, or fallacious. But it renewed in me that grief and pity, for the ſtrange diſeaſedneſs of ſuch Diſſenters, (which Mr. Danvers had before cauſed) to find ſuch abundance of Rhetorical Invectives, without one word of Proof: As if you had prevaricated, and had a deſign to have kept me from Repentance, by telling me I had no particulars to Repent of that you could ſhew.
What do all your Generals of [no anſwer] and tergiverſation, and abundance the like ſignifie, to any man of common ſenſe, unleſs this be the meaning of them, [It is Mr. Danvers his Opinion and mine that you are fooliſh, firey, injurious, frivolous, &c. Therefore you muſt Repent of this, though we ſay nothing that ſhould convince a reaſonable man.]
But, I muſt retract what I have written againſt Anabaptiſts; for you invite me to it by a torrent of General Accuſations, and letting me know that Mr. D. and you do think me Hetorodox.] And juſt ſo doth Mr. Pen and the Quakers do alſo: And ſo do the Papiſts, and with as great confidence and Oratory perhaps as yours: And ſo do the accuſers of the Non-conformiſts in many Volumes: and ſo do many other Parties: And muſt I be therefore of all their minds? Or why more of yours than of theirs, if I have nothing from you but confident Gnerals, which they can ſay as well as you? Yea thus do the Infidels themſelves now uſe me, and muſt I therefore yield?
But I have written Fierily against Mr. Danvers! 1. Did I begin with Mr. D. or he with me? 2. Have I ſaid any thing offenſive to him, beſides the detecting of his marvellous audacity in ſtrange heaps of untruths in matters of Fact? and his lamentable injury thereby to the Church of Chriſt?
Sir, I know you not, and ſhould I tell you what a Spirit in your ſelf, your copious outcryes, and extream tenderneſs of our diſſent and contradiction of you, ſhews, and how unlike to the voice of a ſheep of Chriſt it is to cry ſo loud, as if the knife were at your throat, when we do but tell the Church of your Errours and Injuries to the Truth, upon the urgency of your reſtleſs importunity: Should I tell you what ſtrange Partiality you ſhew in finding Meekneſs, Truth, and Reaſon in Mr. Danvers his Books, and Folly, Fire, and No-anſwer in mine, I could not expect that you ſhould ever the more be convinced, or Repent, but rather take that alſo for Fiery, as taking me for an uncapable Monitor. But I deſire you only to ask the Opinion of the judicious and impartial herein; for Repentance to your ſelf ſhould be no odious thing. And whereas you tell me over and over what all wiſe men now think and ſay of me, and of my Writings, am not I an unhappy man that never met with one of thoſe wiſe men, but your ſelf and ſuch profeſſed oppoſites (Anabaptiſts, Quakers, Papiſts, or ſuch like.)
But what if I be fooliſh, and you be wiſe? Cannot you ſuffer fools gladly, ſeeing you your ſelves are wiſe? And is your impatient and general Invectives, and your ſelf-juſtifying, an infallible proof of your great Wiſdome?
Brother, upon the deepeſt ſearch that I am able to make in above 20 years Conſideration, I am ſatisfied that you heinouſly wrong the Mercy of God, and the Church, and true Believers, and their Seed, by denying them that part in Gods Covenant and Mercy, which I have proved he hath ſtated on them in his Word: I am fully ſatisfied that God never had Church-Laws on earth, whether in innocency, or ſince the Fall, which extended not the priviledge of a Covenant and Church-ſtate to the Infants of the Church, if they had ſuch (on that ſuppoſition;) and that the Church from the dayes of Adam till now hath had Infants members by Gods appointment; and that Chriſt ſo found them, and ſo continued them; and that it was then a thing that none did controvert: I am ſatisfied fully, that all that are Diſcipled are by command to be Baptized; and that Nations ſhould be Diſcipled, and the Kingdoms of the world made the Kingdoms of Chriſt; and Chriſt would have gathered to his Church the whole Jeruſalem, as the Hen gathereth her Chickens, and none were broken off but for unbelief, and therefore the Children of believing Jews were not broken off; and that we are graffed into the ſame Olive: I am ſatisfied that they that ſo hardly digeſted the forbearance of Circumciſion, would never have ſilently paſt over the Vnchurching of all the Infants, without one word of exception; nor Christ have ſo far countenanced the Excepters, as to be angry with thoſe that would have forbid Children comeing to him, becauſe of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, nor the Scripture have talk'd ſo much of Baptizing Houſholds. I am not hardened enough to reject ſo plain a Text as, [The unbelieving Husband is ſanctified, &c. elſe were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.] Nor in that one text to expound Sanctifying for Lawful Marriage, and Holyneſs for [Legitimation] when the words are never ſo taken elſe in the Bible, and mamany hundred times in another ſenſe: nor to ſay, that all Pagans Children are holy if they be not Baſtards. I am ſatisfied that man muſt not teach God how to ſpeak, but carefully enquire what he hath ſpoken; And if but one Text of Scripture acquaint us, directly or conſequentially of his mind, we muſt be faithful in obſerving it: I believe that theſe are your thoughts as well as mine, and that you verily think that you hold cloſe to the Scripture, and that I depart from it: But as I am as willing to underſtand it as you are, and at as hard a rate of coſt or labour, ſo I well know that one mistake once deeply received, doth let in abundance more, and fights againſt all the light that would detect and ſhame it: And he that once accounteth Falſhood to be Truth, will account the Defenders of Truth to be its Enemies. Otherwiſe how could you and ſuch others bring your Conſciences to wreſt and wrangle againſt ſuch abundance of plain Scripture Texts? Were it but this one, what could be plainer? What is wreſting Scripture if this be not, to force a ſenſe of Holyneſs and Sanctification upon one Text, which is never found elſe in any Text, and the contary, or different ſenſe neer ſix hundred times; is this impartial dealing with Gods word? And do you think that Paul mentioneth that as a great and comfortable priviledge of Believers, which belongs to Heathens equally with them? Why do you not your ſelves ſtill uſe that language then, and ſay, that the Children of Infidels are holy, when too many will ſcarce allow the title to any Adult Chriſtians that are not of your Sect, much leſs to the Children of Chriſtians, though dedicated by Baptiſm to God?
But being called by you to a Review, I am again remembred, that our Saviour himſelf was a Church member in his Infancy, even the chiefeſt, that is, the Head; Mr. Tombes confeſſeth it: Let not your opinions intereſt draw you to deny it, nor to call my aſſertion [rotten dictating.] If you ſhould, I would ask of you, at what age Christ began to be Christ, and the Churches Head, as we ask the Socinians, At what age he began to be God? And if an Infant was capable of being the Head, King, Prieſt, and Prophet Relatively, though yet he had never Ruled, Sacrificed, or Taught, then there is nothing in the Infant Age, which maketh it uncapable of being Members, Subjects, and Diſciples of Chriſt: And it is like that Irenaeus was not deceived, who ſaith that he Sanctified the ſtate of Infancy by being an Infant; and we have reaſon to judge, that he did thereby give us notice that the Infant Age is not unacceptable to him, nor uncapable of Church Relation.
Truly Sir, the ſerious thought of Chriſts Infant Relation is a very great confirmation of me againſt thoſe that exclude all mankind in their Infancy from the Covenant and Church; even as Chriſts ordinary Communion in the Synagogues and Temple, is an inſuperable argument with me againſt unlawful Separations.
And God himſelf calling Infants his Servants, who do no actual ſervice, Levit. 25. 41, 42. yea and calling them Diſciples, Acts 15. 10. prevaileth more with me, than the words of any one that ſhall ſay, They are uncapable of being Servants, or Diſciples. If the Infant-age did not render them uncapable of being Subjects of Chriſts Kingdom, and Members of his Church (Univerſal and Particular) before Chriſts Incarnation, it maketh them not ſince uncapable of the like or ſame Relations.
And why ſhould I ſuſpect ſuch incapacity? are not Infants members of other Societies? are they not members of Families? and may not a Family be Sanctified by dedication to God? are they not members of all the Kingdoms in the world? and is it not the common light of Nature, which teacheth all men ſo to eſteem them? are not Infants the Kings Subjects? and why may they not as well be Chriſts Subjects as the Kings? Have they not Right of Inheritance and Honour; even of Crowns, Lordſhips, and Lands? Do any Nations under Heaven level all Children, as if the Parents communicated neither good or evil to them? What reaſon then to ſuppoſe that Chriſt obliterateth even Natures Laws?
And if you deny not Original Sin, why ſhould you think that God is ſo unproportionably prone to puniſh and damn more than to pardon and ſave; as that while all Infants are made ſinful and miſerable by their Parents, yet not one in the world ſhall have ſo much as a part in Chriſts meritorious Righteouſneſs, and the free grace and pardon of his Covenant, upon the Parents dedication of him to God, and entering him by conſent into his Covenant? Doth ſin abound ſo much more than Grace, as that Condemnation is paſſed upon all Infants for and by their Parents ſin, and the free Covenant gift doth not pardon any ſin to any one Infant in the world upon any condition which the Parent can perform (nor any other.)
You never yet by all your words (for all words are not Light and Proof) did convince me that it was no Benefit to Infants before Chriſts Incarnation to be Covenant-members of his Church (particular and Univerſal,) Nor that Chriſt came to deprive them all of that benefit: Mr. Tombes his pretenſes that it is a Benefit to Chriſtians to have all their Infants put or kept out of the Church State and Mercies, is ſo abſurd, againſt Nature, that I am aſham'd to ſay any more againſt it: If it be our Benefit to have no Covenant-gift of Chriſt, Pardon and Life to our Children, may you not next ſay, It is our Benefit to have them damn'd? And if it were ſo, Nature teacheth us to be loath to receive our Benefits by ſuch means; as one would be loath that a Phyſitian ſhould cure his Sickneſs by a draught of the heart blood of all his Children.
Sir, I could the eaſilyer bear with your delay of external Baptiſm; if you did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of Life. But when you dare not only do that, but reproach our aſſertion of Gods Covenant-Grace to them, as [Abſurd and Heretical] it is no Fieryneſs to ſay, that I will not follow you. Where there is no Covenant or Promiſe there is no Hope, which we can call Divine; and if we have no Hope of the Pardon or Salvation of our Children upon any Promiſe of God, it is no Promiſe of Mans that can keep us from Deſpair. We may not then ſay as David, I ſhall go to it] any farther than to the Grave.
Nay do you not do worſe than deprive us of our hopes, even lay ſuch grounds as deſtroy and exclude them, by a ſentence of damnation? For God [addeth to the Church ſuch as ſhall be ſaved.] And if Infants be not added to the Church, are they not excluded from Salvation? For Chriſt waſheth and ſanctifieth his Church, & he is the Saviour of his Body only; And if they are not of his Church or Body, he waſheth them not, nor is their Saviour effectively. The ſame Text that ſaith, He that believeth ſhall be ſaved, ſaith, He that believeth not ſhall be damned.] And He that believeth not is condemned already.] If therefore you allow them no participation in their Parents Faith, but require perſonal Belief of them, as neceſſary to their Salvation, according to the Promiſe, you muſt alſo require the ſame of them to ſave them from Damnation, by the Threatning.
Did you but leave Christians no more hope than you do Pagans and Turks of their Childrens Pardon and Salvation, I would not be ambitious of the Joy of your opinion; much leſs if you poſitively condemn them. And what do you leſs, if finding them condemned by the violated Covenant of Innocency, you totally exclude them from the Remedying, Pardoning, and Saving Covenant, and from Chriſts Body which he doth ſave.
If you ſay that they may be of his inviſible Church, which is the ſaved Body; I anſwer, 1. What they may be, tells us not what they are. If they be not ſo much as viſible Members, who can ſay that they are inviſible ones? 2. They are by Nature viſible Members of the Kingdom of Satan, and Children of wrath, and viſibly under the Laws Condemnation: Therefore 'till we can prove them viſibly by grace tranſlated out of this ſtate of nature, their viſible Condemnation cannot be denyed.
And what a jumble make you, if you make a great part of Mankind to be at once condemned viſible members of the Kingdom of the Devil, and inviſible ſaved members of Chriſt? Men may be viſibly Chriſtians, (Hypocrites) and yet inviſibly wicked; but to be viſibly condemned members of the Kingdome of Darkneſs, and yet inviſible members of Chriſt is ſtrange to me; eſpecially conſidering that Hypocrites are viſibly what they are not really, and inviſibly, becauſe they falſely profeſs what they have not: But a condemned Infant doth not deceive men by diſſembling, but we actually know that as a child of Adam, he is a child of ſin and death: It is truly ſo. Therefore we muſt conclude that as Gods Word is true, he continueth ſo, till he be delivered by Grace. And the Covenant of Grace is the Conveyance of, and title to our gracious priviledges, as the threatning is of wrath.
Shall not all that are judged, be judged by Gods Law? (the Law which they were under?) And what Law ſhall Infants then be judged by? If they are under no Covenant of Promiſe that giveth them title to life, how can they have title by it, or be judged by it?
Are they Juſtified or not Juſtified? If not Juſtified, they are condemned certainly; and ſhall not be glorified; for it is the Juſtified that are glorified, Rom. 8. 30. But if they are Juſtified, either it is by ſome Juſtifying Promiſe and Covenant, or without: If without, 1. Do you not give hope alſo to all Heathens and Wicked men, that though they are condemned by the Law of Innocency, and not juſtified by any Covenant of Grace, yet they may be juſtified without? 2. And by what means is it? by any or none? If by any, by what? If by none, how know you it? But if it be by any Covenant-Grant that they are juſtified, it muſt be by that of Grace which I am pleading for or none. For we will not now receive another Goſpel.
To talk therefore of meer Election, is nothing to any of this that I have ſaid. Election Juſtifieth not, nor diſſolveth the condemning Sentence of the Law. God judgeth not men meerly on the grounds of his unreveled Election, but by his Word, which is the Rule. And were it otherwiſe if unrevealed, none can prove it, and therefore muſt not affirm it: And were it reveled that God will ſave ſome that he promiſeth not to ſave, nor giveth them any antecedent right to it; yet 1. No man could know by this, whether any one in England or Europe, or in the World in his age ſhall ſo be ſaved: nor whether it be many or few, or more than a dozen in the world. 2. And no one can know who any of theſe be? and ſo can have no notice of comfort for any of his own. 3. Nor that Chriſtians Infants ſhall be ſaved any more than the Heathens.
Theſe things, Sir, are not to be ſubmitted to by all Chriſtians, for fear leſt you elſe revile them, or leſt Mr. T. ſayes, Their blood be on their own heads. Auſtin is called Durus Pater Infantum, for too ſharp a cenſure on the unbaptized; (though many miſtake him.) But we ſhould be harder, did we leave all viſibly condemned without a pardoning word, or any viſible remedy and hope.
And truly me thinks you too much honour the Kingdome of the Devil, if you make it viſibly contain all the Seed of the Woman, even of the Faithful, till they come to age. It is too great, I will not feign it to be greater. Were all the Circumciſed Iſraelites, and all the holy ſeed till Chriſt, at once both in the Church, and in Satans Kingdom? If not, ſure it is not ſo now.
Sure I am that the Scripture tells us of a larger Church, and a better Covenant, and Promiſes, and greater Salvation under the Goſpel; and do you bring it down to this, to give us all up to the Devils viſible Kingdom, without any viſible Remedy, till we come to age?
And he is ſcarce ſo like to prove a member of Chriſt at age, who is trained up in the Kingdom of the Devil till then, as he is that is educated in the Houſhold of God. There is more of Gods bleſſing to be expected in his own Family than in the Devils.
Either it is a Mercy or no Mercy to be in Chriſts Family or Church? if none, why do you value it? if it be, why ſhould we think that the Saviour of the world procureth it to no Infants? nay that he came to leave them out. Would you not take it for a Mercy if you believed that God in Scripture gave it, to all the Seed of the Faithful dedicated to him? I think you would.
For my part I believe that the Seed of the Righteous is bleſſed, Pſal. 37. 26. and that the Children of Satan, and the condemned unjuſtified ſeed are not bleſſed: That bleſſed are they whoſe ſins and iniquities are forgiven and covered, and to whom the Lord imputeth not ſin, and that this bleſſing cometh even on the uncircumciſed; But not on them who are unpardoned, and condemned already.
I hear many ſad Mothers lamenting their dead Children, for fear leſt they are damned: And though I never was a Father, I can perceive what the concerns and bowels of Parents are. But what would they do, if they were taught to believe, that no Infant ever in the world, had any juſtifying, pardoning Promiſe, nor viſible Remedy, but all till age are under condemnation, by the undiſſolved Obligation of the Law.
The Antinomians of late years have attempted to perſwade men, that ſecret Election juſtifieth from Eternity, and diſſolveth the Laws Obligation, (before it did oblige, even to non-exiſtent Subjects:) But few believe them, the Errour being ſufficiently laid open. And yet what other than this feigned Antinomian Juſtification do the Anabaptiſts allow to any Infants in the world? But the Obligation of a Law or Covenant to puniſhment, muſt according to Gods eſtabliſhed order, be diſſolved by a Law or Covenant, even by the Pardoning Law of Grace. No doubt but all elect perſons, before Regeneration are in the viſible Kingdom of the Devil, and heirs of hell, and under the condemnation of the Law, as undiſſolved, and they not pardoned: and is this the caſe of the beſt of Infants?
Had Infants Church-memberſhip been a meer Jewiſh Ceremony, or a meer piece of the Moſaical Policie, giving no right to any ſpiritual benefits, nor extended to any other but the Jews, we ſhould have judged of it as of the reſt: But I dare ſay that I have given full proof of the contrary in both my Books, not here to be recited; and have produced more than [rotten dictates] that from Adams dayes Infants were eſteemed as under the Bleſſing or the Curſe, as belonging to their Parents, & intereſted in their actions & conditions. Beſides that any heathen might have brought in his children as Proſelites into Church-memberſhip with the Jews; whereas now you allow not ſo much to any Chriſtians.
And it was before Circumciſion was inſtituted, that Marriage was regulated by God, that there might be [a Seed of God] Mal. 2. 15.] And I will not be ſo audocious, as to expound that title, of all the Devils Children that be not Baſtards.
But ſtill you ſay, There is no Scripture, Preſident, or Precept for Infants Baptiſm.]
Anſwer, 1. Abuſe not your ſelves and others: we are firſt to agree Whether Infants may be Church members, and under the Covenant of Grace with their Parents? And then we ſhall next conſider, at what age, and in what manner they ſhould be ſolemnly inveſted. Confound not differing Queſtions: the firſt muſt be firſt reſolved. 2. There is no Scripture preſident for Baptizing any Kings; muſt none therefore be Baptized? 3. Scripture tells us not all that was then done, but all that muſt be done. 4. When Baptiſm was firſt inſtituted and practiſed, the Parents muſt firſt be Converted and Baptized. 5. Yet over and over the Baptizing of Houſholds is recorded. 6. Infants Church-memberſhip was a thing that they were before in profeſſion of, and no ſort that ever I read of queſtioned it: Therefore what need Chriſt inſtitute it anew, any more than to new make the Ten Commandments? 7. If it had ever been his meaning to diſpoſſeſs them all, he would have told us ſo in ſome word of Scripture, or ſome mention ſure had been made of it. 8. But certainly he told them that he would have gathered Jeruſalems Children to him, which is the Nation that was before Gods Church. 9. And he took Children in his arms and bleſſed them, and was angry with thoſe that kept them from him, and ſaid, Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. 10. And how can we obey Mark 9. 36, 37. and receive Children in Chriſts name, and as belonging to Chriſt, if none do viſibly belong to him?
2. But I anſwer fully, There is a full Command for Infant Baptiſm Mat. 28. 19. Go ye Diſciple me all Nations, Baptizing them.
Where note, 1. That it is not the effect that is made their duty, but their endeavour; elſe the Apoſtles had ſinned when the hearers believed not, and becauſe all Nations were not Diſcipled.
Note that to be Diſciples and to be Chriſtians, Acts 11. are made all one; and to be Diſcipled and to be Chriſtened.
3. Note that it is not here and there one, but Nations, that they muſt endeavour to Diſciple: And as the Jews are called a holy Nation, ſo it is ſaid, I will give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, Pſal. 2. and Iſa. 55. 8. Mal. 1. 10, 11, &c. the Converſion of the Nations and Heathens is promiſed: and the Word and our Experience have both ſaid, The Kingdoms of the World are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Chriſt. But Kingdoms and Nations contain Infants; and he Diſcipleth not a Nation that Diſcipleth no Infants in the Nation.
The Apoſtles were commanded to Diſcple whole Nations: the Infants are parts of whole Nations: therefore the Apoſtles were bound to endeavour to Diſciple Infants.
Object. It is only the capable parts: but Infants and Ideots are not capable parts.
Anſw. I have before [and elſe-where fully] proved Infants capable parts, as Chriſt was of being Head, and as Infants are of Societies, and of a part in Covenants with men: and Ideots having not the uſe of reaſon from the birth, are in the ſame caſe with Infants; and the Diſtracted, after at age, are nothing to our caſe, but are capable of being Diſtracted members; and Diſtraction is not Excommunication, nor Unchurcheth any.
Object. 2. They muſt be made Diſciples by Teaching.
Anſw. 1. If they be made Diſciples any way, they muſt be Baptized. 2. As a mans hand or foot doth not underſtand by teaching, and yet is part of a Diſciple that's made ſuch by teaching; ſo Infants underſtand not, and yet are Infant Diſciples, as being naturally ſo much appertaining to their Parents, that by Gods Law the Parents Will goeth for theirs in conſenting for their good. They are Subjects before they obey, and ſervants of God before they ſerve him (as thoſe were to Abraham that were born to him in his houſe,) and as Chriſt was a Prieſt before he Sacrificed, &c. And ſo they are Diſciples before they learn; and made ſuch by thes teaching which made their Parents ſuch, and taught them to dedicate them to God.
If the King ſhould ſend Embaſſadours to perſwade the Heathens in New England at once to become Christians and his Subjects; would any man doubt but when the Embaſſadours prevail with all the Adult to become the Kings Subjects, they do thereby make the Nations, and ſo all Infants as dependents on the Parents to be Subjects alſo? And if the ſame ſpeech of the ſame men make the Parents both Chriſtians and the Kings Subjects, may it not as truly be ſaid that that ſpeech made the Infants Chriſtians (when the Parents conſent) as Subjects when they conſent?
3. If actual Learning or believing were neceſſary to the Chriſtianity, or Church-memberſhip of all, then whenever any one were Mad or Diſtracted, or in an Appoplexy (if not every night while he is aſleep) he ſhould ceaſe to be a Chriſtian and Church-member.
And if Infants as part of Nations muſt be made Diſciples, and all that are Diſcipled be Baptized, (as the Inveſting act) then here is a plain cmmand to Baptize Infants: All that muſt be Diſcipled muſt be Baptized: Infants muſt be Diſcipled: Therefore Infants muſt be Baptized: What have you more for Baptizing Kings?
And if men ask for Scripture Preſedent, or fuller proof; 1. I alſo require them to give me any one Scripture Preſedent, where ever any one that was the Child of a Chriſtian, and not at age when the Parents were made Chriſtians, was afterward Baptized when he came to age? Prove that and you will prove ſomething.
2. I ask them whether many points in Divinity be not now taken as neceſſary, or ſure, for which not the fourth part ſo much is produced out of Scripture as I have done for the Church-memberſhip of Infants.
And ſeeing you have ſo importunately called me to a Review; I will add theſe few things more, [I.] What Benefits I perceive cometh by Infant-Baptiſm. [II.] What hurt would come if you could prevail againſt it. [III.] What ſin you would draw men to by rejecting it. [IV.] And I will tell you what thanks therefore I owe to God for preſerving me from your miſtakes and way.
I. And I cannot but think that all theſe following are Mercies not to be deſpiſed. 1. To be Gods Children, and God to be their God and Father. 2. To be Chriſts Members, and Chriſt to be their Head and Saviour. 3. To have the Holy Ghoſt in Covenant with them, to give them his Grace and help as ſhall be neceſſary to them upon the further terms on which it is by degrees to be communicated. (of which more anon.) 4. To have the pardon of all Original ſin, as to the damning puniſhment, and ſo to have the Laws Condemnation diſabled. 5. To be members of ſo holy, ſafe, and honourable a Society as the Church. 6. To have their Love and Prayers as Members. 7. To have Parents obliged ſolemnly to endeavour to educate and uſe their Children as members of Chriſt, fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the Houſhold of God. 8. To have right to Heaven, ſo dying, by Gods gift. 9. For Parents and Friends to have comfortable notice of all this. 10. And that they are not under the power and Kingdom of the Devil, as thoſe that are Rebels againſt the Covenant, or that are without.
II. Should your perſwaſions prevail againſt Infant-Baptiſm, theſe evils I think would follow. And whereas you ſay, that your Think is as good as my Think, pardon my modeſty, and while you follow your own Think, give me and others leave to judge of mine, by the evidence at leaſt of probability which I bring.
1. I think that Chriſtian Parents would want one of their Motives to live in Thankfulneſs to God, and to magnifie the Grace of the Redeemer, if they did beleve that all Infants are in the viſible Kingdom of the Devil, and have no Promiſe or Covenant-Grant of Pardon, Remedy, or Life.
2. The want of this Demonſtration of Divine Love would be a diſadvantage to their Love to God: For where much is forgiven, there will be much Love.
3. It would deprive Chriſtian Parents of all the forementioned Comforts for their Childrens good, and leave them to mourn for the dead as thoſe that have no hopes, which any Promiſe of God alloweth them.
4. Parents would be more negligent in the pious education of their Children, than they are; for their ſolemn Vow and Promiſe is a great additional Obligation.
5. Young Perſons would be more bold in ſin, when they know that they are under no Covenant, Vow or Promiſe to the contrary: And they would uſually delay their Repentance and Baptiſm; as Conſtantine, and many in thoſe times did; as thinking that [all ſin is done away when I Repent and am Baptized; but it is more dangerous to ſin after Baptiſm than before: And ſo moſt would think it beſt to live out of the Church, and to die in it; to live as Infidels, and die as Chriſtians; to live after the fleſh as do the wicked, and to be regenerate before death, and to die the death of the Righteous.
6. Theſe delayes would do [as delay of Repentance now doth to many.] even drive away Gods Spirit, forfeit grace, harden the heart, ſo that few delayers would be converted.
7. By theſe delayings of Repentance and liberty of ſins, wickedneſs would more abound, and ſo Gods judgments againſt the land be more increaſed.
8. Pagans and Infidels would be hardened and encouraged, by the multitudes of the unbaptized, and the paucity of Chriſtians.
9. For Chriſtians would be but few in compariſon of the multitude: juſt as Mr. Tombes thinks Chriſt would have it, [here one and there one.]
10. And while ſome delayed their Baptiſm in ſcruple, (as many now do the Lords Supper) and others to take the liberty of ſinning (which were like to be the common caſe of youth) and others in ſenſeleſs negligence, the Baptized and Unbaptized would grow (like our Non-conformiſts and Conformiſts) into diſtinct Parties, upon diſtinct Intereſt in point of Reputation; and ſo the unbaptized become the Adverſaries (for the moſt part) of the Baptized.
11. And the Rich, and the Multitude being uſually the Unbaptized party, they would be ſtill the ſtrongeſt, and the Governours of the reſt; and the Laws and Government would be ſuch as the Governours.
12. And hereupon the Church would be (as before the dayes of Conſtantine) ordinarily under Perſecution.
13. This Perſecution would detein the moſt from looking towards Chriſtianity, and ſo hinder multitudes from comeing in to Chriſt: and woe to them that ſo offend or hinder ſuch little ones; It were better a milſtone were hanged about their necks and they were caſt into the depth of the Sea.
14. There would then be no ſanctified Families dedicated to God, (except thoſe few that had no Children.)
15. Much leſs would any Nation be Diſcipled, or any one Kingdom be the Kingdom of the Lord, and of his Chriſt.
This is not the Condition that I deſire and pray for: If you doubt of all or any of this, look to the Eaſterni parts of the world, and be not worſe than thoſe that will learn by nothing but experience. Judge whether under the Turkiſh Government the Greek Church be grown better, and whether the Chriſtians are more and holyer than heretofore. And yet the Turks give Liberty of Religion, which moſt Unbaptized Princes do not.
O dreadful Caſe! That ever Religious perſons ſhould Study, Preach, Pray, and fervently Diſpute and Write to bring the Chriſtian world to this, as for the advancement of Religion!
III. To tell you of ſinning, I ſuppoſe will be taken for fiery fury; or a Reproach of the Godly: But I may tell you why I am not of your mind, and what ſin I think I ſhould be guilty of, if I were.
1. God made it a duty for Parents ſolemnly to enter their Children, by Dedication, into the Covenant of God (as is oft proved.) And how will men anſwer the non-performance hereof any more than their not Praying for them, or not feeding or Cloathing them?
2. What a ſin is it to rob Chriſt of ſo great a part of his Church?
3. What a ſin ſo to deny the Goſpel Grace and Promiſe, and to hide ſo much of the Love of God?
4. What a ſin ſo far to confound the ſtate of Chriſtians and Pagans, as to their Childrens bleſſing?
5. What a ſin ſo to enlarge and honour the Devils Kingdom, as to give him all mankind viſibly, till they come to age?
6. What a ſin to rob Parents of ſo much of their due comfort.
7. What a ſin to deprive ſo many millions of Covenant-pardon, Grace and Life, by hindering the acceptance and conſent?
8. What a ſin thus to change and take from the Word, yea from the very Covenant of God?
9. What a ſin to vilifie ſo great Mercy, as if it were none, and to preach ſuch ingratitude?
10. What a ſin ſo to diſhonour Chriſt, as if ſin abounded ſo much more than his Grace, as that all Infants being viſibly condemned, not one in the world is viſibly pardoned or juſtified?
11. Yea to make Chriſt ſo like Satan and contrary to himſelf, as to come into the world to caſt or keep all mankind in Infancy out of the Church and Covenant of Grace; And when his Name is called Jeſus, becauſe he ſaveth his people from their ſins, he will take none for his people, till age, nor ſave any Infant viſibly from ſin, either guilt or habit, and ſo be no Jeſus to any but the Adult, that we can know of: when yet before his comeing it was otherwiſe; And ſo to make the Goſpel much harder than the Law, and the yoak of Chriſt harder than the yoak of Circumciſion.
12. Yea and to make the Goſpel Church more narrow and unhappy than all the Pagan Nations were before, whoſe Children might have been Proſelited with the Parents.
13. What a ſin is it to teach men to be thus unnatural, and cruel to their Off-ſpring?
14. What a ſin to teach all that are not Re-baptized, that they break no Baptiſmal Vow or Covenant, nor ſin againſt it, becauſe they never were Baptized.
15. And is it nothing ſo to croſs our Prayers, [Let thy Kingdom come] and to pray and endeavour that Chriſts Kingdom may not extend to any of mankind, till they actually at age believe.
But the great difficulty which it will be expected that I reſolve, is, Whether I do not imply, That all the Children of true Chriſtians dedicated to God, having ſaving Grace in their Infancy, many after fall from it, ſeing experience tells us, that too many prove ungodly.
I Anſwer, 1. So much of Scripture, and ſo great and many Mercies muſt not be all denyed, when a difficulty ariſeth in the way, which we cannot at the preſent anſwer: Elſe what would become of moſt mens Chriſtianity it ſelf?
2. This was no difficulty to the antient Fathers, no not to Auguſtin and his followers, and ſo to all the known Church of Chriſt for a thouſand years after the Apoſtles, who commonly held that even of the Adult, many fall from true Grace, Juſtification, and a ſtate of Life; ſome appropriating perſeverance to the Elect, (as Auſtin) and ſome to the confirmed in Grace, and ſome to both.
3. It is hard that they that cannot extricate themſelves out of ſuch difficulties, will but reproach thoſe that offer them their help: But this is not the firſt time that I have ventured upon their Ingratitude: I ſpeak of it ſtill as a difficulty; but what I have ſaid in my [More Reaſons for Infants Church-memberſhip.] ſeemeth moſt probable to me, viz.
1. All Chriſtians confeſs that Adam fell from a ſtate of Salvation, or right to Life, at preſent.
2. Adams Grace which he loſt, was a Power to Love God, and obey him, which he could uſe or ſuſpend.
3. Beyond a meer Power, there is in the ſanctified by the in-dwelling Spirit of Adoption; Gracious Habits of Love and Obedience: What Adam had of this I am not here to determine.
4. Beyond meer weak Habits, there is in ſome, ſuch Habits as are ſtrong, confirmed and radicated.
(5. And in Heaven above all theſe, there is full Perfection.)
Now I apply this, 1. Actual and Habitual, Love and Obedience, is in the ſanctified Adult by the indwelling Spirit; For Actual Love and Obedience is their Duty, which the Habit is joyned to.
2. Vocation giveth Faith and Repentance in Act, with ſome ſeminal diſpoſition to the ſaid Acts and Habits of Love and Obedience, (as Ameſius Medull. de Orat.) not yet Habits; and this Vocation goeth before Sanctification, Faith being the Condition on which the Spirit of Adoption and Sanctification is promiſed.
3. So much Grace may be given to Infants, as was to Adam, as to meer Power to do what he did not, and as the Dominicans call ſufficient, or neceſſary Grace; and perhaps ſuch as is the innitial Diſpoſition before full Sanctification. And this much may qualifie them for preſent Pardon and Juſtification, For Actual Love and Obedience is not their Duty, and conſequently not the proper habit, beyond a Power and ſeminal Diſpoſition, as of neceſſity to their firſt ſtate of Grace: And as Adam loſt this much, ſo may they.
4. The Sanctifying Spirit of Adoption, is not promiſed to Infants to work ſuch Acts in them as they are not yet capable of, nor ſuch Habits, as in Gods uſual order follow ſuch Acts; But he is Related to them as their Sanctifier, becauſe Chriſt will ſend the Spirit as they come to the uſe of Reaſon, to help them in holy Acts, and ſo to Habits, if they forfeit not his help. Which ſome do (beſides the perfidious neglect of Parents) and ſo loſe that Infant-Grace.
5. But all Gods Elect ſhall certainly have more than this Grace of ſufficient, neceſſary, loſable Power and Diſpoſition, and ſhall at age have actual Faith, Love, and Obedience if they live.
6. What ever Infant dyeth in the ſtate of that Grace & Diſpoſition (which we call ſufficient, & in its nature was as loſeable as Adams) ſhall be perfected in his acceſs to the perfecting Glory (as all imperfect Saints are,) and is one of the Elect, and ſhall by Promiſe be ſaved: (allowing degrees of Glory:) If there be no need, or evidence of this ſolution, and you have any other ſurer way, then caſt this by as [rotten dictating.]
Thus far I have given you an account of my Review: But yet I here repeat again;That if you would be contented your ſelves, to ſatisfie your own Conſciences to be Re-baptized, (as one that doubted whether he were well Marryed would ſecure it by being Marryed over again) and would afterward live peaceably in communion with your Brethren, and not appropriate Church-communion to your Sect. And if you would not deny our Infant part in the Covenant of Grace, the promiſe of Pardon, and life by Chriſt, and our Infant Church-memberſhip, and only delayed the Baptiſmal Inveſtiture, as Tertullian deſired, for the more ſolemn inauguration, and obligation; Though I ſhould not be of your mind, I ſhould live in as loving forbearance and Communion with you, as with other Chriſtians.
But if when we are for Peace, you are for Church-Wars, and cannot differ from us without Dividing, Unchurching, Unchriſtening, avoiding, and even Contemning or Slandering almoſt all the Chriſtians in this and former ages, in ſuch things I will have no Communion with you.
The Fathers likened Re-ordaining, and Re-baptizing. If any would ſatisfie his own Conſcience with being ordained again for ſurety, not Unchurching, Degrading, Avoiding, Reproaching, Perſecuting thoſe that are not of his mind, I would break no peace with ſuch a Re-ordained Perſon: But if the Re-ordaining Sectaries will ſay as you, Our way only is right, we only are the true Miniſters and Churches, and turn like to Donatiſts, I am not of their mind.
And I here profeſs, that while I tell you of my diſſent from your Extream, it implyeth no liking of the contrary extream of thoſe that would confound the Chriſtians & the Heathens, ſo far as equally to Baptiſe all their Children, if any Baptized perſon will but perfidiouſly promiſe that for them, which they never made any intelligent man believe that ever they intended to perform: Nor can I love the Hypocritical Religion of the Phariſees, which turneth almoſt all into Ceremony, as if they had to do with none but Children; nor the turning of Catechiſing and Confirmation into a lifeleſs Formality, to be inſtead of a ſerious Profeſſion at age, of the Chriſtian Covenant, and a ſolemn intelligent tranſition to the Church Priviledges of the Adult. I know that it is Satans game, firſt to draw Hypocrites to mortifie Gods Ordinances, and turn Religion into an Image or a Carkaſs; and thence to ſtir up others in ſeveral Sects, inſtead of Reviving them, to Loath and Bury them. Woe to the World becauſe of Offences, and Woe to them by whom they come.
Before I come to my Fourth Part, which is my Application to my ſelf, I muſt take notice of ſome more of your Applicatory Letter in the way: And if I diſorderly repeat ſome things, in following ſo diſordered a Leader, you (at leaſt, whatever others do) muſt take it patiently, it being far ſhort of the tedious work which you ſeem to call for: You would have Mr. Danvers his Letter Anſwered, and you would have better Proof for Infant Baptiſm. It is not in my power to believe the Reaſons of my two Books, which you generally take for none, to be no ſound Reaſons; nor to believe Mr. Danvers his Books not to be ſuch a bundle of moſt groſs miſtakes and Vutruths, as I ſcarce ever before met with, from a profeſſed Chriſtian. If I miſtake, it is not in my power to do otherwiſe, were I to die this hour. And if I have offended the Anabaptiſts by a faithful perſwading them to Repent of the doleful work which they have made in England, my Conſcience more accuſeth me for doing it no more, than for doing ſo much. If you take all men for as bad as you deſcribe me, that wiſh your Repentance for ſuch works, and alſo for our woful Church Diviſions, and differ from you about Infant-Baptiſm, and that yet beg for mutual forbearance, and peaceable Communion with you, I am not of your ſpirit or mind, and hope neither to live nor die in ſo narrow a Communion.
As for any more Anſwering any of you, thoſe that I converſe with, tell me it is needleſs; I repent that I have been drawn by Contenders ſo often to interrupt more uſeful work. If more be needful, let them do it that have leiſure, and longer life.
You ſay, that It is now a common queſtion whether ever I will die a Martyr?
I am ſorry that your Acquaintance are hardened, and uſed to queſtions that ſo little concern them, and that are ſo unmeet for their Determination: If Suffering be the beſt State, how happy hath this Kingdom been made by the OVERTURNERS? Do you mean that you doubt whether ever the Anabaptiſts will have Power enough to effect it? they attempting what they did againſt me too late, juſt when they and their Co-partners were a pulling down themſelves and others? Or do you mean, that till we are Martyred we are not capable of your good Opinion? (And are all the Anabaptiſts Graceleſs that are yet Unmartyred? Or have more Anabaptiſts than Poedobaptiſts been Martyred in our times?) Or is it only your Prognoſtick on ſuppoſition of my Tryal? I have more cauſe to diſtruſt my ſelf, and beg Gods ſtrengthning Grace, than boaſtingly to foretel, Though all men deny thee, yet I will not.] But your talk of [my flight, and others ſuffering by proxie for me] doth but ſhew that you have not that care of avoiding Falſhoods in matter of Fact, which might invite us to think that you are liker than others to be ſound in Doctrine. But had you not miſtaken, yet I might have admoniſhed you, not to have condemned every Anabaptiſt that hath taken a groſſer flight, than a ſick mans going for his health into the Countrey, when he had neither any Flock, nor Vndertaking, nor Call to hinder him: At leaſt that you mock not at Paul for being let down by the wall in a Basket, nor at Chriſt for his flight into Aegypt, or withdrawing into the Wilderneſs, and into Gallilee, &c. nor for ſaying, When they perſecute you in one City, flee to another: or at leaſt paſs no hard ſentence on your ſelf for being yet alive; no nor on Mr. Tombes for Writing againſt Separation, and for Communion with the Pariſh Churches.
But in the end you [Beſeech me in the Bowels of Jeſus Christ, and as I will ſhortly anſwer at the great and dreadful Tribunal that among my other Errata, I would repent of that abſurd and Heretical poſition, of a Baptiſmal Covenant of Grace running in a Fleſhly Line.
Anſw. But 1. Juſt thus the Quakers dreadfully adj…re me to repent of all that's againſt their way; and muſt I therefore do it? And yet Mr. Hicks, Ives, and other Anabaptiſts treat them far more ſharply than cover I did the Anabaptiſts.
2. I have ſo many years looked for my appearing at the Tribunal of Chriſt, that if I ſhould not be true to that Light which doth appear to me, I were more unexcuſable than yet you think me. But will your word at that Tribunal paſs for Law, or for my Juſtification, if I ſhould contradict the Grace and Covenant of God, and his Church Laws and ſtate from the dayes of Adam to this day? How ſhall I be ſure that it is the Bowels of Chriſt, and not Self-conceitedneſs, and the Zeal of a dividing Sect, in which you make this carneſt ſute to me?
3. Eſpecially when you ſo unintelligibly recite my ſuppoſed Errour, and give me not a word of Anſwer againſt that abundance of Scripture proof which I have brought? This is too unſatisfactory an anſwering of Books, to Beſeech us to repent of them?
4. The Wiſdom from above is Pure, & Peaceable, and without Partiality. Is yours ſo? Ask any Impartial man whether you write like one that knoweth himſelf? You here call us to Repent of a Poſition as Abſurd and Heretical? Did I ever call your Opinion Heretical. Not that I remember? Such writing as this of mine is fiery; but your large Invectives without one word of proof, and your charge of an Heretical Poſition, is nothing but Chriſtian Gentleneſs.
Your Phraſe of a Covenant running in a Fleſhly Line, is your own. The words of a poſition charged as heretical, ſhould have been truly recited. Tell me where I ever uſed ſuch. I refer you to my late two Diſputations of Original Sin, beſides my two Books of Baptiſm, for full proof that God hath taken the Children of the Godly and the Wicked as participants, into Promiſes of Love and Mercy, and threatnings of puniſhment, with their Parents: How far, I have there opened. Your telling me that ſuch Reference is to ſet you the task of Syſiphus, ſhall not ſo befool me as to tempt me to write the ſame over again: For by the like reaſon, others of as great authority as you may call me to write it twenty times. And if I give neer thirty Scripture Teſtimonies or Arguments for our Infant Mercies, we that ſee no reaſon to invalidate them, will not ſo deſpiſe God and his Laws and Benefits, as to deny or reject all, becauſe ſuch a man as you require it, and tells us that they are all invalid. If we muſt take our Faith on Truſt: it were more excuſable to take it from Councils, than from you.
I have told you my judgement herein ſo often, that it is the more diſingenuous in you to give it in ſuch ſenſeleſs or ambiguous words, as [A Baptiſmal Covenant running in a Fleſhly Line.] Gods Covenant as Inſtituted, runs no where; but is recorded in the Scripture, Preached, and Miniſterially applyed by his Miniſters. Mans Convenanting Act, is abſurdly ſaid to [run in a Fleſhly Line.] But men that have Fleſh as well as Souls, do accept Gods Covenant, and enter themſelves and Infants in the mutual Convenant by dedicating both to God. Natural Generation (communicating eſſence) maketh your Children to be naturally yours, which is ſo neer an intereſt, that Original Sin and ſuffering tells us that God eſteemeth not our Children naturally guiltleſs of the Parents Crimes: And he hath provided a Remedy for both, and not for the Parents or Adult only: And the Remedy is a pardoning ſaving Covenant procured by a Mediator. This Convenant is Vniverſal to the Adult, as offered on the condition of Believing acceptance: And is there no Promiſe, no Covenant for Infants? Why ſo? Have they no need of Pardon, and a Saviour? or are they left remedileſs as the Devils? Or is the Promiſe of their Salvation without any Condition? If ſo, is it to all, or to ſome only? if to all, and ſo all are Chriſts members, then all (Turks and Pagans) Children ſhould be Church-members. This were to make it run unto a Fleſhly Line indeed? If not to all, to whom, or to how many? Is it to more than twenty in the world? or more to Chriſtians Children than others? If it be a Promiſe of Pardon and Life, and neither tell to how many, nor to whom; 1. This is a ſtrange Promiſe, and is no mutual Covenant? Shew us where in Scripture we may find it? 2. This then muſt be another Species of a Covenant of Grace, diſtinct from the Baptiſmal Covenant; and to feign and add a ſecond ſort of Covenant is another kind of adding to the Word of God, than adding of Ceremonies is. And who can ſay in all the world, that any Child of his hath any part in ſuch a Promiſe? or that Pagans have not as much of it as Chriſtians? All Promiſes of Pardon to the Adult are conditional, and ſome means for certain Title is preſcribed? Is there no means for the certain pardon of our Infants?
2. But if you will ſay that it is conditional, what is that Condition? That which I have ſtill ſaid is this, The Condition is, that they be the Children of the Faithful dedicated to God: not meerly that they be our Fleſhly Line; that doth but make them ours, and (with Gods Law) enable and oblige us to dedicate them in Covenant to him: But being thus in our power, and our Wills for them as their own, it is our dedicating them to God, that is the immediate Condition: And every true Chriſtian doth dedicate himſelf, and his Children to God, as far as he thinks himſelf enabled: This dedication is virtually in our own actual ſanctification, and actually when we have Children, which is ſolemnized in Baptiſm. What we devote to God by his Will he doth accept: And we can ſhew his Promiſes to the Seed of his Servants, and will not plead againſt our Mercies. Should we Apoſtatize our ſelves, the Mercies promiſed to the generations of them that love God, would be intercepted, and would not run to a Fleſhly Line: But an Infant by Believers dedicated to God, is not unclean but holy, and ſo better than a meer Fleſhly Line. To pour out your Clamours againſt our Proof, full and plain proof, of this, from the whole current of the Scripture, and to vaunt, and talk with ſuch Confidence as you do in the dark, as if all this were un-proved, (and the very ſecond Commandment were again caſt out, and Gods own Proclamation of his Name, Exod. 34. 6, 7.) and to call for more Anſwers, while you cry out of too much; and to talk againſt dictating, while you thus obtrude your Quakerlike Oratory, Contempt, & Obteſtations, inſtead of Argument and Anſwers; this muſt not make us unthankful Deſpiſers of the Promiſes of God. If you would thus Hector men out of their Inheritances, or the title of their Infants to them, few would think you argued cogently: And ſhould the words of ſuch ſelf-conceited ſingular perſons, which we take to be againſt the ſcope of Scripture, and conſent of Chriſts Church, make us give up all Infants Convenant-title to Churchmemberſhip, Pardon and Salvation? You read frequently in the Gazetts, that many ſet ſo much by their Dogs, as to cry them about, and offer great rewards to thoſe that find them, and will bring them home; And ſhall all Chriſtians ſet ſo little by their Children (and ſo by all our own Infant Priviledges) as to be hector'd out of our hopes, and renounce their great and precious Promiſes, which number them with the houſhold of God: and that by ſuch Rhetorical Canting as a man of equal wit may uſe, in almoſt any other Controverſie?
As Cicero wondered at them that pleaded againſt the immortality of the Soul, that ever men would be ſuch enemies to themſelves, as to ſtudy for reaſons againſt their own intereſt and hopes; ſo I ſay, Though our meer Intereſt prove nothing to be true, it tells us, what we ſhould deſire; and when we find Gods word ſo excellently suited to our Intereſt, let them diſpute againſt it that will, for I will not. Let the Enemies of mankind or of Chriſtians, plead againſt the Intereſt of mankind and of Chriſtians, and not themſelves.
It's an unavoidable ſtreight that we are in, between them that ſilence and ruine us in this world, among ſuch other things, for not profeſſing our Aſſent, that [It is certain by the Word of God, that Infants Baptized (none in the world excepted) and dying before actual ſin, are certainly Saved▪] not allowing us to preach Chriſts Goſpel if we cannot ſay that all This is certain; (were it Faith in Chriſt himſelf, the weak in Faith ſhould be received;) and ſuch as you on the other ſide, that account us even Heretical if we will not be ſo unthankful to God, as to deny and reject the precious Covenant Hopes, and Church-relation of our Children. You know that with what meaſure you mete it is meaſured to you again by many; and that no ſmall number of Chriſtians have numbred Anabaptiſts with Hereticks; and yet I that have dealt otherwiſe with you, am your moſt fiery Adverſary? And why? Any judicious By-ſtander may ſee, though you cannot: juſt as as W. Pen lately ſeemed to think more favourably of me than of others, till in an open diſpute I had detected the evil of his cauſe; and then [he had rather be a Socrates at judgment, than ſuch a nominal Chriſtian as I: ſo you and your Brethren that are like you, becauſe a Book or two of mine have croſs'd the Intereſt of your Party, think I deſerve all that you pronounce of or againſt me; ſo powerful is Intereſt with moſt mens underſtandings: ſo far as it is your miſtake of the Intereſt of Chriſt that does miſlead you, I eaſily bear it as the infirmity of a weak and prejudiced judgment: But ſo far as it is the intereſt of your Party which is abuſed againſt the publick intereſt of Chriſts Church it is ſelfiſh, and ſuch as is deſcribed at large in James 3.
As for your talk of Mr. Danvers his words againſt my Heterodoxes in other matters, and your ſupercilious inſulting as if he were unanſwered, I ſay, 1. I take him to be fully anſwered, and if you do not, that proveth it not to be as you affirm. 2. What more ſhould I anſwer? What doth he but recite ſome ſcrap of my words? Had he done it truly and fully, had that been any Argument againſt them? Do I need to anſwer my own words, before any Charge againſt them be proved, or proof once attempted? Was it not enough for me to lay down the Contraries to my Doctrines, and leave the Reader to chooſe which he ſeeth beſt? Dare you not own the Contraries, and yet continue your accuſation of my words? Would not the World (whom I blame not if they think that I have written too many Books already) condemn me for a fool indeed, if in the condition that I am in, the Cant of ſuch men as he and you, ſhould draw me to write another Volumn in Defence of a Volumn that defendeth it ſelf to all judicious Impartial Readers, and that againſt one that proveth nothing in it to be Erronious?
And as for thoſe that will not impartially peruſe the words accuſed, I have no reaſon to think that they will make any better uſe of a Defence if I ſhould write it? And as I am paſt doubt that Mr. D's Quarrels, and your Juſtification of them, are the effect of meer ignorance, ſelf-conceit, partiality, and paſſion; ſo if you prove to be the knowing men, and I the ignorant, I am ſure it is not through my neglect of Study, nor unwillingneſs to know or own the Truth: And I have no cauſe to envy you the felicity of your greater Wiſdom. But if it be a Wiſdom that tendeth to bitter ſtrife and to confuſion, and deſtroyeth your Love to thoſe that differ from you, I will remember that my peace lyeth more on my Love to you, than on yours or any mans elſe to me.
As for your talk about my words in my firſt book that ſome did then Baptize naked, I have given you a true anſwer. To contradict what I ſaid, were to lie: I know not that you Baptize any at all but by report of others; and ſo I heard that then of ſome ſo credibly as that I am not able now becauſe you call for proof almoſt thirty years after, to disbelieve it: I undertake not to prove it now; (nor that the Quakers then uſed to Quake or Vomit, ſeeing now no ſuch thing is ſeen among them:) If really it was a miſreport, and never any Baptized naked in England, nor in other Lands, I wiſh that no man may believe it. But did Mr. Danvers take this for ſo heynous an injury, and yet himſelf in2 Books labour to prove, that for many hundred years Baptizing naked was the ordinary Cuſtome! O how far will partiality blind men? Was it the Cuſtome of all the Churches, and yet a Reproach to be retracted, to ſay that at one time divers did ſo, if fame, not then denyed by any of thoſe Anabaptiſts that I converſt with, may be believed?
To conclude, Sir, The importunity of Mr. Danvers and you have not been unprofitable to me: It hath cauſed me, as you deſired, to Review my old thoughts of Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, and to renew my thanks to the God of Mercy, who hath not left all the World in their Infancy unredeemed, nor without a Promiſe or Covenant of Grace; nor left Chriſtian Parents to mourn for their dead Infants, as thoſe that are without hope of their Salvation, and have no Promiſe on which to ground their hope: It hath renewed my ſenſe of the great obligation that lyeth on believing Parents, both of gratitude to God, and duty for their Children: It tells me that they may now love their Children, as the members of the Church of Chriſt, and need not, nay muſt not take them as members of the Kingdom of the Devil; nor yet ſtretch their Brains to prove that there is a middle Region (like Purgatory, or Limbus Infantum hereafter) between the Kingdom of Chriſt, and the Kingdom of the Devil; And that it is a ſad employment for Parents to diſpute their own Children out of the Bleſſings of Gods Covenant, and to prove them to be in Satans Kingdom, and not in Chriſts: Yea it hath reminded me how much the Intereſt of Infants in their Parents caſe is founded by God in nature it ſelf, and to bleſs God for that inſcription in Stone of the ſecond Commandment, and that marvellous voice from Heaven, Exod. 34. 6, 7. I believe that the Synod of Dort ſaid truly, Acts 1. 17. That Faithful Parents need not doubt of the Election and Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy, (before the violation of the Baptiſmal Covenant.)
And ſeeing God hath pronounced our Children holy, and not unclean, and told us that of ſuch is the Kingdom of God, it remindeth me how careful Parents ſhould be, as thankfully to dedicate them to God, ſo carefully to educate them according to their Covenant, remembering that as the Parents Conſent and dedication of them to God, is the Condition of their firſt right to the Covenant benefits, ſo thoſe Parents do Promiſe their pious education; and if they after prove falſe in ſuch Promiſes on their part, they muſt not charge God with unfaithfulneſs, if it go worſe with their Children than on ſuppoſition of the Parents fidelity it had done; (though ſtill at age they may be accepted upon Repentance and perſonal Belief:] Of which Mr. Whiſton hath written more judiciouſly than any on that point that I remember.
Alſo I have been hereby made thankful that God kept me from the ſnare of Anabaptiſtry; for though I lay not ſo much as ſome do on the meer outward act or water of Baptiſm, believing that our heart conſent and dedication qualifieth Infants for a Covenant Right before actual Baptiſm (which yet is Chriſts regular ſolemnization and inveſtiture,) yet I make a great matter of the main Controverſie, notwithſtanding that I hereticate not the Anabaptiſts for the bare opinion ſake, nor would have them perſecuted; for now I better ſee than ever what God hath thus preſerved me from.
1. How much elſe might I have been led to, that tendeth towards the denying the Kingdom of Chriſt, and denying him to be the Saviour of the world; yea how neer might I have been led towards the making him to be the Deſtroyer, or Abaddon, as comeing into the World to condemn the world, and to take from them the Promiſes and Hopes of Salvation: For, 1. I find that all are loſt in Adam, and that God made an Vniverſal Covenant of Grace with fallen mankind in Adam after his fall, and renewed it with Noah: I find that it is but a ſmall part of the world that had the Law of Moſes, the Jews being to the earth, but as one Village to England; and to be King but of a Village is not to be King of England. I find that the making of Abraham's or Moſes his Covenant was no repeal of the Vniverſal Law of Grace; nor put them into a worſe condition than he found them in. And I find that paſt all doubt Infants were Church-members, and in the Covenant before Chriſts Incarnation, not only the Circumciſed but the Uncircumciſed Females, and all the Uncircumciſed Males in the Wilderneſs, yea and out of the Jewiſh Nation, as well as in it, (though the Covenant of Peculiarity was proper to them.)
And yet notwithſtanding all this, I find, 1. that many now do exclude all the world out of Chriſts Kingdom before his Incarnation, except the Jews, or at leaſt a few rare individuals more, when Abraham hoped there had been fifty Righteous in Sodome. 2. That the ſame men ſuppoſe that ſince Chriſts Incarnation, the old Law of Grace made to mankind in Adam and Noah, is repealed, and they that cannot have the Goſpel are left under the meer Law of Innocency or none. 3. And that all mankind in their Infant ſtate is put or left out of the Church of Chriſt, and the Covenant of Life.
And had I been ſeduced into all this, 1. To hold that for 4000 years Chriſt had a Kingdom no bigger than England. 2. That he came to deprive all the world that have not his Goſpel, of the former Law of Grace that was made to them. 3. And that he came to caſt out of their Church-ſtate, or Covenant-mercies all mankind while they are Infants; and to leave us no hope that is grounded on his Covenant or Promiſe of any Infants Salvation, or any deſcription or condition whatſoever: Alas, what ſhould I have been led to? and what guilt againſt Chriſt, and of furthering Infidelity, ſhould I have incurred, under the pretenſe of promoting the purity of his Kingdom?
II. And if God had thus left me, I had been likely (as I ſee by others) to have gone yet farther, and narrowed the Goſpel Church it ſelf ſo much, as to have confined it to the Anabaptiſts; or to have thought all the reſt of the Chriſtian world uncapable of Church Communion; I might have come to revile the Doctrine of Gods gracious Promiſe or Covenant to our Children, as Abſurd and Heretical; and when Gratitude is the complexion of Goſpel obedience, this Ingratitude might have been mine.
III. And then I ſhould likely have been left to a proud over-valuing of my own Opinion, and the ſingularity of my Wiſdom and Integrity, as quite beyond all the Chriſtian worlds that differ from me: And out of a ſelfiſh unobſerved adherence to my own conceits, to have magnified the Sect that was of my own mind, above all others.
IV. And then I might have been ſeduced to have had a hand in all the Turnings and Overturnings, ſetting up and pulling down, Praying and Unpraying, Owning and Diſowning, Bloody dayes and Thankſgivings for them, that were ſince Triplo Heaths-Parliament till 1660. and more than ſo, to have juſtified them in others, yea and that after Gods moſt remarkable diſowning them; yea and to have abhorred and derided the very name and motion of Repentance for them, and to have deſpiſed the Religious Retreat of Nath. Ward, a wiſe though jocular Interpendent, though Repentance be the only Plank after Shipwrack, and the great and merciful conceſſion of the Goſpel.
V. I might have been drawn hereby to divide Chriſts Kingdom, and to ſet up Antichurches, whoſe employment ſhould be to cry down others, and draw men into odious thoughts of one another, and to deſtroy Chriſtian Love and Concord in the world.
VI. And hereby I might have been one that prepared Profeſſors to turn Quakers, Seekers, or Ranters, to have finiſhed the work that I began.
VII. I might have been tempted to do all this as in the Name of Chriſt, and for his Truth, Word and Church; and ſo to have entitled God to all, and put his holy Name to theſe works of Darkneſs, and pretended his own Commiſſion for my oppoſing him.
VIII. I might have been tempted hereby to write Letters as long and vehement as yours, in as or… cal and pious a ſtrain, which ſhould have been b… birth of my ignorance and ſelf-conceit, and made … of Hypocriſie; all along pretending that I am offended with my Adverſary for want of an Anſwer or proof, when indeed it were the ſucceſs of his Anſwers & Cogent Proofs, prevailing with multitudes againſt my Opinion, that was the true cauſe of my anger: and when partiality had filled my heart with bitterneſs againſt my Brother for ſuch ſucceſs, I might have been drawn to cover all from my ſelf and others, by accuſing him of fieryneſs or folly in generals, and by ſummoning him to Repentance and Recantation, as the Quakers do, by the dreadful Tribunal of God, when I cannot reſiſt the Scripture evidence which he bringeth.
IX. And I might have been tempted when once Prepoſſeſſion, Prejudice & Intereſt of Reputation had engaged me to ſo bad a cauſe, to have ſtudyed all that I can rake together to maintain it; and to have ſtretch'd all my wits to have oppoſed all that is brought againſt it, and to have made it the chief work and Religion of my life, in which my thoughts, affections, time and induſtry ſhould be laid out to carry on this miſtaken and deſtructive cauſe, and to keep the Churches of Chriſt from Loving-Unity, Communion and Peace, till they will all unite againſt Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, which they never did, nor never will do: Yea, and I muſt have taught all Chriſtian Parents, that though they muſt love their Children as they are their own, (as Heathens do) yet that they muſt not Love any one Infant in the world, as a Member of Christ, or of his Church, and in his Covenant.
X. And by all this, what a Scandal ſhould I have given to the Atheiſts, Infidels, Papiſts and Profane, to harden them in their Contempt of Godlineſs, and Deriſion, or Accuſations of Religious men; as if all ſerious Religion among us were but Pride, Contention, Humour and Hypocriſie, and a Cloak for our Mala…ies and Crimes. Yea I might have tempted them to Perſecution, and quieted their Conſciences in ſilencing Christs Miniſters, for the ſake of ſuch, whom they think they uſe not ſo ill as they deſerve.
XI. And alaſs what a diſtraction and ſcandal ſhould I have cauſed to the ignorant and weak, when they ſee ſo many wayes, and hear men calling them this way and that way, and terrifying them with Gods Judgment, and the charge of Sin, if they be not of this mind or of that, till poor people (that have a plain Rule left them by Chriſt) are driven out of all Religion, or out of their Wits, as not knowing of what ſide and way to be.
XII. And I ſhould have been like enough to have been drawn into the guilt of Perſecution my ſelf, while I cryed out againſt Perſecution. I might have Perſecuted my Brethren with my Tongue, and thought it neceſſary to the promoting of the cauſe of God, to blaſt their juſt Reputation, and to make them by falſhoods to become deſpiſed, leſt their names ſhould hinder my deſign. Yea, who knows but I might my ſelf have joyned with thoſe whom you judged the perſecuting Silencers of the Miniſters of Chriſt, and Ruiners of the Churches Peace, by endeavouring the continuance of thoſe ſame Impoſitions, and keeping Miniſters out of the publick Miniſtry, and depriving them of all the eſtabliſhed Maintenance, which in the judgment of the Sectaries themſelves is heynous ſin, and all this leſt Repentance and Altering ſuch Impoſitions (unleſs they will do it as far as the ſaid perſons deſire) ſhould weaken their Party, and leave them under greater diſagvantages; and to have thus deſired mens impenitent Continuance of that which is accounted heynous Perſecution and Devaſtation of the Churches, and ſtarving many thouſand Souls, and undoing Ministers▪ and their Families, might have made all this to be my own by ſuch conſent, yea and endeavour; and the pitiful ſhift of [oppoſing a Comprehenſion, to keep off our own Sufferings, or our weakening, and the dividing of the Non-conformiſts.] might have been an Opiate to my Conſcience for ſo heynous an Iniquity.
XIII. Yea, who knows but I might have come to that inhumanity, and immodeſty as to falſifie publick Hiſtory, againſt the common notice of all the Learned world; and to have faced down mankind that the Novatians were againſt Infant Baptiſm, and ſo were the Donatiſts; and that Auſtin wrote divers Books againſt them, as holding that Opinion; and that the Brittains of old were of the ſame mind, and the Waldenſes ſince, and Wickliffe alſo, &c. And if Learned men had wondred at my impudence, I might have comforted my ſelf that my followers will believe me: yea and to have furiouſly calumniated thoſe that detect my ſin, and call me to Repentance, and to have reproached them as fooliſh and fiery who will defend the Mercies of Chriſt, and their Infant hopes and title to pardon and ſalvation.
Theſe and many more evils I might have been ſeduced into, if I had yielded to thoſe reaſonings that would have drawn me to deny the Graces of the Covenant; and which in my youth once did cauſe ſome doubting in me, till I diligently ſtudyed the point; my ignorance of the true nature of the Covenant and Baptiſm, and the weakneſs of many Writers Arguments againſt the Anabaptiſts, being then my great Temptations.
And now, Sir, I thank you for calling me, in the bowels of Chriſt, as I will anſwer it at Gods dreadful Tribunal, to a Review of the Cauſe which I was drawn by your Brethren to defend: For it cauſeth me in the Review of the Nature and Reaſons of it, to renew my thankfulneſs to God for my preſervation, and that he hath made any uſe of me to vindicate his Covenant, and the Mercies given by it to mankind, and for ſaving me from this fore-deſcribed deluge; and I ſolemnly proteſt in his ſight, that knoweth my heart, that if I knew, or by ſtudy could find out that Papiſts, Conformiſts, Separatiſts, Anabaptiſts, or Quakers were in the right, I would quickly and joyfully declare my conſent, & be glad before I die, to joyn with them, and recant what I have held, or ſaid, or done againſt them. But the Reaſons which I have given in my two Books, and which Mr. Joſ. Whiſton (above moſt others) hath lately given, ſeem to me unanſwerable. And yet I doubt not but Mr. Danvers or you can anſwer them all; there being few Cauſes ſo clear that a man may not talk againſt, as long as his talking faculty holds out: But do not expect that I ſhould offend you by Replying, to words which I think need no Reply, unleſs the neceſſities of ſuch as are deceived by you do require it. Bleſſed be that Mercy that will ſhortly Reconcile his dark miſtaken wrangling Children in the World of Reconciling Light and Love, in the perfect Vnity, which Grace is now preparing us for, and they that live in Faith and Love, are breathing after: And woe to them who by dead Formalities elude and hinder mens ſolemn intelligent owning of their Baptiſmal Covenant at age, and thereby make Anabaptiſts, and make Infantbaptiſm ſeem a Crime.
London, Decemb. 31. 1675. Rich. Baxter.