Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 53
SECT. LIII. Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, which he asserts, whereby the point is stated.
THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice, that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley, Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God, whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church, now Printed in his book of Baptism, ch. 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be, and he denying it was that of circumcision, urged him often to tell me what it was, which he would not, which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been. After, in my Praecursor, I again told him, I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews, no universal law or ordinance for it. To which what elusory reply he made, is shewed in the second Part o… this Review ▪ sect. 2. pag 8, 9. Which moved me, being then upon the examining of his 4th. and 5th. ch. from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster ▪ to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him.
Sir,
Not finding yet that Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed, I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written, and to transmit it to me by this bearer, that your allegations may be considered by him who is Yours as is meet;
April 3. 1655. John Tombes.
The next morning I received from him this Letter, directed to me.
Sir,
I mean to see more said against what I have already written, before I will write any more about infant Baptism, without a more pressing call than I yet discern. I have discharged my conscience, and shall leave you and yours to take your course. And indeed I do not understand the sence of your Letter, because you so joyn two questions in one, that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to. Whether there were any Ordinance or Law of God that infants should be Churchmembers? is one question: Whether this be repealed is another: you joyn both into one. For the first, that infants were Churchmembers, as you have not yet denied that I know of, so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it: And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods ordination. There are two things considerable in the matter. First, the benefit of Churchmembership, with all the consequent priviledges. It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these, and not directly of a precept. Secondly, the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God, and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit; and this is the work of a law or precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these: For you cannot imagine, that any infant had the blessing without a grant or promise, (that's impossible;) nor that any parents lay under a duty without an obliging law, (for that's as impossible.) Taking it therefore for granted that you are resol…ed in both these, and so yeeld that such a grant and precept there was, there remains no question but Whether it be repealed: which I have long expected that you should prove. For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained, though more may be said then is said, yet I shall think it needless, till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you, proved to be reversed. Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts, while you confess in general, that such a promise and preeept there is, by vertue of which, infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church (for Christs Church it was) even his unive…sal visible Church. Still remember that I take the word [law] not strictly for a precept onelyonly, but largely, as comprehending …oth promise and precept, and I have already shewed you both and so have others.
So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness, I am willing to second yo… in; viz. that at the age yo… desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ, and their resolution to be …: But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here, then to spend my time to prove that no infants of believers are within Christs visible Church, that is, are no infant Disciples, infant Christians, infant Churchmembers. I know no glory it will bring to Christ, nor comfort to man, nor see I now any appearance of truth in it. I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy, and that I was dedicated so soon to God, and not left wholly in the Kingdome and power of the Devil. They that despise this mercy, or account it none, or not worth the accepting, may go without it, and take that which they get by their ingratitude. And I once hoped, that much less then such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen, would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made. I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers, or at least the preventing of others Apostacy: which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches. Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you, then again to write against rebaptizing, or for Infant-baptism.
Sir, I remain your imperfect brother, knowing but in part, yet loving the truth; Rich. Baxter.
Being the same day to return home, yet loth to be put off thus, I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter, this also to him.
Sir,
I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy (not by any promise or precept) visible Church members, that is of the Congregation of Israel. I do not confess that there was any law or ordinance determining it should be so, but onelyonly a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, and I think it were a foolish undertaking for mee to prove the repeal of a fact. Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that law, ordinance, statute or decree of God is that is repealeable, that is, which may in congruous sence bee either by a later act said to be repealed, or else to be established as a law for ever. This I never found in your books, nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant; and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular text or texts of holy Scripture where that law is. Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers (in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting) of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists, I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised, and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers, as you call them. And I think you do unjustly impute the direfull consequences you speak of to the denial of infant baptism, and to the practise of adult bap…ism, and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others. I yet expect your texts, knowing none in any of your books that mention that law of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly, and am yours as is meet;
Bewdley this 4th. of April. 1655. John Tombes.
About a fortnight after I received this Letter to me from him.
Sir,
If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work, let me request you to tell me fully, exactly and plainly, what transient fact you mean, which you conceive without law or promise did make Church members: that so I may know where the competition lieth. When I know your meaning, I intend, God willing, to send you a speedy answer to your last. Your fellow-servant,
April 16. 1655. Rich. Baxter.
Upon the receipt whereof, I speedily returned to him, on the day of the date of it, being then at Bewdley, this following Letter.
Sir,
The transeunt fact of God, whereby infants were visible Churchmembers, was plainly exprest in my last to you, to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people, which is the expression of Moses, Deut. 4.34. Exod. 6.7. And by it I mean that which is expressed Levit. 20.24.26. when God said, I have severed you from other people, that you should be mine. The same thing is expressed 1 Kings 8.53. Isai 43, 1. This I term [fact] as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations, whereby he did accomplish it. Following herein Stephen, Acts 7.2. and Nehem▪ 9.7. I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Ur, Gen. 12.1. to which succeeded in their times the enlarging of his family, removing of Lot, Ishmael, the sons of Keturah, Esau, distinction by Circumcision, the birth of Isaac, Jacob, his leading to Padan Aram, increase there, removal to Canaan, to Aegypt, placing, preserving there, and chiefly the bringing of them thence, to which principally the Scripture refers this fact, Exod. 19.4. Levit. 11.45. Nehem. 1.10. Hos. 11.1. the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, giving them laws, settling their Priesthood, tabernacle, army, government, inheritance. By which fact the infants of the Israelites were visible Churchmembers as being part of the Congregation of Israel, and in like manner though not with equal right (for they might be sold away) were the bought servants or captives, whether infants or of age, though their parents were professed idolaters. And this I said was without promise or precept, meaning such promise or precept as you in your Letter say I confess, and you describe, a promise conferring to infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges, a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the childe to God, and entering into Covenant, which confers the benefit. For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God, and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people, and requiring them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. and Deut. 29. Yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Churchmembership, or precept for parents or others, concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Churchmembers, besides Circumcision, as in your Book of Baptism you assert. Nor do I conceive that infants of Israel were made visible Church members by the promises in the covenants or the precepts forenamed, but by Gods transeunt fact which I have described. Which I therefore term [transeunt] because done in time, and so not eternal, and past, and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law, ordinance, statute, decree, which determines such a thing shall bee for the future, though capable of continuance in the same or the like acts, or of interruption. Which continuance or interruption is known by narration of what God hath done, not by any legal revocation, or renewing, or continuance of a promise or precept concerning that thing. Now as the Churchmembership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call, and was completed when they were brought out of Aegypt to God, Exod. 19.4. so I conceive it ceased when upon their rejection of Christ as was fore…told Matth. 21.43. they were broken off from being Gods people, which was completed at the destruction of Jerusalem, when the temple was destroyed, as Christ fore-told Luke 19.43, 44. And instead of the Jewish people by the preaching of the Gospel confirmed by mighty signes, God gathered to himself a Church of another frame in a spiritual way, according to the institution of Christ, Matth. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15, 16. in which he included not infants, the Jews themselves were no part of the Christian Church without repentance and faith in Christ professed at least.
Having now fully, exactly▪ and plainly told you my meaning as you request, I do now expect your speedy answer to my last, and therein to fulfill my request of setting down the particular texts of holy Scripture wherein that law largely taken comprehending promise and precept of infants visible Churchmembership, which you assert to be unrepealed, is contained. If you shall in your answer set down wherein the blessing, benefit, and priviledges of infants visible Churchmembership, which you assert unrepealed, did consist; I may better understand you then I do: But I shall press you no further then you shall be willing in this thing. I am, Yours as is meet,
Bewdley, April 21. 1655. John Tombes.
On May 29. 1655. I received this following answer.
Sir,
A probability of doing or receiving good, is to me a call to action. Seeing no such probability, I told you at first my purposes to forbear any further debates with you, till you had better answered what is said. In your next you seemed to deal so plainly, as if some small probability of good did yet appear: But in your 3d. you fly off again and eat your own words, and jumble things in much confusion, so that I now return again to my former thoughts. For you that expresly say and unsay, and contradict your self, are not likely to be brought to a candid management or fair issue of the Dispute. You'l sure think it no great matter to be driven to a self contradiction (which with others is to lose the Cause) who so easily and expresly run it upon it your self.
Answ. It was a call sufficient to Mr. B. to do what I requested in my first Letter, in that a brother and fellow servant (as he takes me to be) desired it of him. If he love the truth ▪ as he saith, he should be willing to let us know his Scriptures he alledgeth for that which he asserts as a truth. If he conceive himself imperfect, knowing but in part, why should he not be jealous of his own opinion, especially resting on remote consequences, rather then violently oppose mine, which his own acknowledgements do make plainly agreeing with the New Testament? If I were a sophistical adversary, yet I should think it were meet Mr. B. should debate that with me which he hath so clamourously and confidently opposed me in. What better answer I need make to what is said then I have done, so far as I have gone (which is if not the greatest part, yet the chiefest, and indeed for Scripture Texts all that requires an answer) I see not. I have set down almost all my Antagonists words, in Mr. Bs. book, at least all that is argumentative and pertinent, with my answers distinctly, fully, and plainly, in the two foregoing Parts of this Review: And what way any man could take, more candid and agreeing to Logick rules, then I have gone in my answers, is yet to me undiscernable. Mr. Firmin, in his Separation examined, pag. 31. saith thus, I can easily discern Mr. Tombes to dispute more like a Sophister, then a Christian, that did desire to see truth: and he cites the words of Mr. M. in his Defence, pag. 147. which I have answered so fully in my Apology, pag. 78, 79. and shewed that very way which Mr. M. chargeth me with, to be as contrary to sophistical disputing as light is to darkness, that I had thought impudence it self would not have charged me with that, in a book printed six years after the Edition of my Apology. Mr. Simon Ford, in his Epistle Dedicatory to his frivolous scribbled Dialogue, chargeth me with railing down rather then disputing, even in that which as he sets it down hath no shew of reviling, but a plain calling a straw a straw. And for my heavy censure, I still profess I know not how to conceive more favourably of Paedobaptists, but wish they would search their own hearts impartially. Mr. Gataker in his letter printed by Mr. B. to whom it was written, doubts in part it to be my disposition to braze my forehead, not regarding at all what men deem or say of me, so I may seem to say somewhat, and have the last word; then which, a more unrighteous conceit could hardly have been entertained by him. Mr. Bs. printing it, together with other passages, makes me almost hopeless of ever meeting with any just, or candid dealing from Paedobaptists. Mr. B. here saith, I jumble things in much conf…sion, that I contradict my self, eat my own words; none of which is true: But he takes on him to prove it thus.
In your 2d. you say [I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people, in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy, not by any promise or precept, then visible Churc…-members, that is, of the congregation of Israel; I do not confess, that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but onelyonly a fact of God, which is a transeunt thing, &c.] In your 3d. you say [For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai, and Deut, 29. wherein Israel avouched God, and a precept of Circumcision, and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people, and requiring of them to enter into Covenant, Exod. 19. & Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Churchmembership, or precept for paren…s or others concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision, as in your book of Bapt. you assert] Before there was no [Law or Ordinance determining it should be so, but onelyonly a fact] now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so, but [not such as I assert in my book] And if I should shew you never so many, you may reply, they are not such as I assert in my book, and waste the time in that trial, when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book: For this is but to lead us about to trifling.
Answ. 1. There is not a shadow of self contradiction in the latter words to the former. For though the latter acknowledge promises to Israel, yet not that by them they were visible Churchmembers; and Laws and Ordinances, yet not determining they should be visible Churchmembers. Had Mr. B. heeded my words, he had forborn this accusation, if he were not bent to find a knot in a bulrush. 2. If I should answer as he forebodes, I should answer rightly. And it is certain, that if Mr. B. should bring never so many promises, and not shew that they made infants visible Churchmembers, as he asserts in his book, he would waste time, and lead us about to trifling; and therefore it is just I should tie him to that, and his excepting against my so doing would shew his wrangling, and will be taken for a losing of his cause. But I am resolved to follow him, even in his vagaries, and to examine whether it be true which he saith, that I jumble things in much confusion.
To make any clear work, saith Mr. B. upon the things in question we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly, many of which you too much confound. The first question in order fit to be resolved is [whether infants before Christs incarnation were Churchmembers? or not?] you grant they were: and therefore this is past dispute with us. The 2d. Qu. and tho first unresolved, is [what Church it is that infants were members of?] This you give me occasion to take in the way, because you twice explain your meaning, when you confess them Churchmembers, by an [i. e. of the congregation of Israel.] By which you seem to imply two things: First, that none but the infants of the congregation of Israel were Churchmembers: Secondly, that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel.] The 3d. Qu. is▪ What it is that gives the Israelites that denomination of [the Congregation of Israel] of which infants were members. For you jumble both together, both causes Civil, and Ecclesiastical, and of both those that make to the being and well-being. So that our enquiry must be Whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense?] and what constituteth it formally? For in this you speak in dark ambiguities. The 4th. Qu▪ is▪ [Whether there was any Law, Ordinance, or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein, or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement, and so to membership and any promise, grant, or Covenant, conferring the right of Churchmembership and the consequent priviledges to infants?] To this you say both Yea and Nay, if I can understand you, or at least as to much of the Qu. concerning the being, and part of the effect of the precept and promise. Yet you conclude, that you [do not conceive that infants of Israel were made …isible Churchmembers by the promises in the Covenants, or the precepts fore named, but by Gods transeunt fact.] I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant, because your tying the effect to the transeunt fact doth exclude them. Here we are cast upon these Qus. next. 5th. Qu. [Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant (or as I shall prove) which yet make not infants Churchmembers?] 6th. Qu. [Whether there be any transeunt fact of God, which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the infants of Israel Churchmembers?] 7th. Qu. [Whether those which you have assigned be such facts?] 8th. [Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws, precepts, or grants which I maintain?] this you insist upon. 9th. [Whether such laws, preceps, or grants as I shall prove, are capable of a repeal or revocation?] 10th. Qu. [Whether they are actually revoked or repealed?]
Answ. The 8th. Qu. is the onelyonly Qu. needfull to be resolved▪ All the rest are brought in to clog the Dispute, to weary me, and the Reader, in an indirect way most of them raised out of my words; in which if I should be mistaken, yet were it not thereby proved, that there is such a Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed, as Mr. B. asserts. Nor by waving of these questions did I jumble things in much confusion, but decline drawing in things impertinent. Nevertheless, sith Mr. B. hath used these shifts to clog the Dispute, I am resolved to prosecute it in his method, having first premon shed the Reader, that many things here said are not true, as that I seem to imply that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel; that I jumble both causes Civil and Ecclesiastical, and of both those that make to the being and well being; that I say Yea and Nay to the 4th. Qu. that I tie the effect to the transeunt fact. He adds.
Before all these Qs. are well handled, we should easily be convinced that it had been better either have let all alone, or else, if we must needs have the other bout, at least to have agreed on our terms, and the stating of the questions better before we had begun. And I think that even that is not easie to do. For when I desired your plain exact and full explication of one word [transeunt fact] and you tell me you have plainly, fully, and exactly told me your meaning: It falls out, either through the unhappy darkness of my own understanding, or yours, that I know but little more of your mind then I did before, and that you seem to me to have raised more doubts and darkness then you have resolved and dissipated. Yet being thus far drawn in, I shall briefly say somewhat to the several Qs. not following your desires to answer one alone: which cannot be done to any purpose while the foregoing are unresolved, because it is the clearing up of truth, and not the serving of your present ends in your writings now in hand that I must intend.
Answ. I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler, nor know I any need to Dispute so many questions, or to agree on terms; I shall answer him as I see meet. What he desired I gave him, not onelyonly an explication of one word, but also of the thing, which that it raiseth so many doubts, seems not to be from the darkness of the understanding, but either from the lightness of the fancy, or the bent of the will to find a way to blunt the Readers attention ere he comes to the 8th. Qu. which it was just Mr. B. should have answered alone, sith otherwise it were an unjust thing for him to put me to prove a repeal of I know not what. His serving me hereby in my present ends of writing had been equal, my ends and writing being onelyonly for the truth: His appear to be for a shift to uphold a while by indirect courses a tottering corruption, which must fall. I follow him.