More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. 1675 Approx. 685 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 215 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A26959 Wing B1312 ESTC R17239 11736761 ocm 11736761 48465 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A26959) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 48465) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 11:10) More proofs of infants church-membership and consequently their right to baptism, or, A second defence of our infant rights and mercies in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter. Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691. [14], 414 p. Printed for N. Simmons and J. Robinson ..., London : 1675. Parts 2 and 3 have special title pages. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. (from t.p.) The plain proof of Gods statute or covenant for infants church membership, and a confutation of Mr. Tombes, his arguments against infants church-membership -- A confutation of the strange forgeries of Mr. H. Danvers against the antiquity of infant-baptism -- Animadversions on Mr. Danvers's reply to Mr. Willes. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800. 2005-07 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-10 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-05 Ali Jakobson Sampled and proofread 2006-05 Ali Jakobson Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion More PROOFS OF INFANTS Church-membership AND Consequently their Right to BAPTISM : Or a SECOND DEFENCE of our Infant Rights and Mercies . In Three Parts . The First is , The plain Proof of Gods Statute , or Covenant for Infants Church-membership from the Creation , and the Continuance of it till the Institution of Baptism ; with the Defence of that Proof against the Frivolous Exceptions of Mr. Tombes . And a Confutation of Mr. Tombes his Arguments against Infants Church-membership . The Second is , A Confutation of the Strange Forgeries of Mr. H. Danvers against the Antiquity of Infant-baptism , And of his many Calumnies against my Self and Writings . With a Catalogue of fifty six New Commandments and Doctrines , which He , and the Sectaries who joyn with Him in those Calumnies seem to own . The Third Part is , Animadversions on Mr. Danvers's Reply to Mr. Willes . Extorted by their unquiet Importunity from an earnest Desirer of the Love and Peace of all True Christians . By Richard Baxter . London , Printed for N. Simmons at the Princes Arms , and J. Robinson at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard . 1675. The PREFACE . Reader , THe first year of my Ministry I fell into a doubt about Infant-Baptism ; and I was so ignorant as not to understand the nature of that solemn Covenant and Investiture , and the Parents duty of entring the Child into the Covenant with God , and what the Vow was which then was made : when time , and light had satisfied me , I retained as charitable thoughts of the Anabaptists , as of almost any that I differed from . About 1646 , 1647 , 1648. they made more stir among us than before : Mr. Tombes living near me , we continued in peace , not talking of our difference ; For I purposely avoided it in publick and private , unless any asked my opinion . At last his Converts came to me , and told me that if I would not answer him in writing , they must take it as an encouragement to them to be Baptized ; and confessed that he sent them , or that they came by his consent : To avoid long writings , one dayes dispute was thought a shorter way . That dispute with many additions I was necessitated to publish ; with some returns to some after arguings of Mr. T.'s . He wrote what he thought meet on the other side . I thought I had done with that work for ever : But in 1655 he sent to me again , and drew from me the Letters here recited . These without my consent he published with an answer in the midst of a great Book : I left his answer these nineteen years , or thereabouts , without any Reply ; as also the rest of his books against me . I thought it not lawful for me to waste my precious time on things so little necessary : A man may find words at length to say for almost any cause . I partly know what can be said against this , and every book that I have written . And I know what I can Reply . And I partly foreknow what they can say to that Reply , and what I can further say in the defence of it ; and so talk on till we have wrangled away our Charity and our Time : and must all this be printed , to ensnare poor readers ? But at last Mr. Danvers hath laid a necessity upon me : I had silently past over all his vain Reasonings , and all his accusations of my writings , and all his falsifications of Authors , had he not called me so loud to repent of slandering some for being Baptized naked : And when I found it my duty to speak to that , I thought it fit to say somewhat of the rest , passing by what Mr. Wills. hath done more fully in an answer to his book . There are two sorts of men called Anabaptists among us : The one sort are sober Godly Christians , who when they are rebaptized to satisfie their Consciences , live among us in Christian Love and peace ; and I shall be ashamed if I Love not them as heartily , and own them not as peaceably , as any of them shall do either me or better men than I that differ from them . The other sort hold it unlawful to hold Communion with such as are not of their mind and way , and are schismatically troublesome and unquiet , in labouring to increase their Party . These are they that offend me , and other lovers of peace . And if God would perswade them but seriously to think of these obvious questions , it might somewhat stop them . Qu. 1. How inconsiderable a part of the universal Church they hold communion with ? And unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth ? Qu. 2. Whether they can possibly hope that ever the Church on Earth will Unite upon their terms , of rejecting all their Infants from the visible Church , and renouncing all our Infant Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of grace ? Qu. 3. And whether if they continue to the worlds end , to separate from almost all the Churches and unchurch them , their employment will not be still to serve the great enemy of Love and Concord , against the Lord of Love and Peace , and against the prosperity of faith , and godliness , and against the welfare of the Church and souls , and to the scandal and hardening of the ungodly ? THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART . THE Preface . pag. 1 Mr. Tombes's first Letter . p. 5 B.'s Answer to it . Ibid. Mr. T.'s second Letter . p. 8 B.'s Answer to it . p. 9 Mr. T.'s third Letter . p. 10 B.'s Answer is divided by Mr. T. into Sections : His Answers are confuted , Sect. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. The many Questions to be handled . Quest . 1. Infants were once Church-members . p. 13 Sect. 5. Quest . 2. It was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members . p. 18 How far the Sichemites were of Israel , and Church-members . p. 21 Sect. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10. Of other Nations . Ibid. Sect. 11. The Israelites Infants were members of the Church Vniversal . p. 26. Sect. 12 , to the 18. Infants were members of the Jews Church as well as Commonwealth . p. 28. Sect. 18. Quest . 4. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging Parents to enter their Children into Covenant with God , by accepting his favour , and engaging and devoting them to God ; and there was a promise of God , offering them his mercy , and accepting them when devoted as aforesaid , &c. p. 31 Sect. 19 , &c. Visible Church-membership what it is ? And that it is a benefit . p. 32 Sect. 22. Legal-right to Infants Church-state given by Gods Covenant : Mr. T.'s confuted and the case opened . p. 35 Sect. 23 , 24. This Right is the effect of Gods Law or Covenant . p. 44 , — 46 Sect. 25 , 26. The proof of Parents obligation to enter their Children into Covenant : what we mean by a Law ; Mr. T. maketh nothing of Church-membership . p. 46 , — 50 Sect. 27. Precepts oblige to duty , and the promises give right to benefits . p. 54 Sect. 28. No Transeunt fact without Gods statute , or moral donation , or covenant , made the Israelites Infants Church-members , proved , to Sect. 44. p. 56 Sect. 44 , 45. Infants Church-membership instituted by God at mans creation and the constitution of Gods Kingdom at the first . p. 72 Sect. 46. Infants Church-membership continued or renewed by the first Law of grace made to Adam , Gen. 3.15 . to Sect. 49. Christs being the Head in Infancy proveth what it is brought for , and forceth Mr. T. to grant the cause . p. 81 Sect. 49. The same proved by the exposition of this Covenant in that made to Abraham vindicated against Mr. T. who again forsaketh his cause . p. 97 Sect. 50. No proof that there was ever one Church-member who in that state had an Infant born to him , who was not also a Church-member . p. 104 Sect. 51 , 52. How far the Law of Nature proveth what I assert . The Church-state of Infants no disadvantage , but a great benefit : wherein — proved , to Sect. 59. p. 105 Sect. 60. More particular proofs , as of Cain , Abel , Seth , Noahs Sons , &c. p. 116 Sect. 70 , to 79. Proving the point fully from the Covenant with Abraham . p. 124 Sect. 79 , to 86. The point proved by the promises to the Israelites . A virtual cause may be long in being before it be formally a cause , and may cause at last without any change in it self , but in the recipient . p. 130 Sect. 86. The proof from the second Commandment vindicated . p. 135 Sect. 87 , to 93. Proofs from divers other texts . p. 137 Sect. 93 , to 96. The case of Infants in the womb . p. 140 Sect. 96 , 97. These statutes not repealed . Mr. T.'s conceit that Gods promise cannot be repealed , confuted . p. 141 Sect. 98 , to 107. Divers Questions offered to consideration . p. 145 Sect. 107 , &c. Ten humbling Questions to Mr. T. ( published by himself against my will. ) p. 157 The fuller proofs from the New Testament only named as being before handled . p. 159 A Confutation of the many Arguments by which Mr. T. would prove that Infants were not Church-members under Christ . p. 161 The Contents of the Second Part. THE Preface : Sect. 1. Of Controversies ; how far good or bad ; with whom sharp rebuke and earnest contending is a duty , and with whom not : And whose duty it is . p. 185 Sect. 2. Of the weight of the present Controversie , that we make it not greater or less than it is : And the state of it in part . p. 198 Chap. 1. The occasion of this Book , from Mr. Danvers . p. 211 Chap. 2. More of my present judgement of the Anabaptists and their cause , with a motion to them for Communion and Peace . p. 216 Chap. 3. A general view of Mr. Danvers book . p. 234 Chap. 4. Mr. Danvers Witnesses against Infant-baptism . His sad forgery against the Donatists detected : His marvellous falsification of Augustines third and fourth books against them de bapt . The said books vindicated . They prove that the Donatists consented to Infant-baptism , and that the whole Church held it , and no Christian thought it vain . His forgery against Vincentius Victor : His slander of Cresconius . His slander of all the Novatians . His slander of the Ancient Brittains detected . His reasons for the Brittains being against Infant-baptism confuted : where many more untruths are detected , of them and many others . His forgeries or false stories of the Messalians , called by him , Dadoes , Sabas , Adulphus , Simonis — His slander of Faustus Rhegiensis — His deceit about Albanus . His gross falsification of Nicephorus and slander of Peter of Apamea and Zooras . His false story of Adrian Bishop of Corinth ; and his false report of Gregories dealing with him . His fable of Aegyptian Divines . His fiction about one Berinius , and his falsification of Beda concerning him . His forgery about Hincmarus Laudunensis , and of Hincmarus Rhemensis charge against him . His slander of the Waldenses , heretofore detected , and further by Nauclerus . A reference to our former proofs of the antiquity of Infant-baptism . Nazianzens judgement . His audacious abuse of Cyprian and the Carthage Council . My repeated assertion of the novelty of Antipedobaptism . p. 239 Chap. 5. Mr. D.'s great Calumnie of my self refuted , as if I had falsly reported that some at that time were baptized naked . p. 281 Chap. 6. His abusive Citations of my Writings as for his cause . p. 285 Chap. 7. His many personal accusations of me examined . Whence it is that so many boldly speak evil of the things they know not . His reproach of [ every one of my Non-conforming Brethren , that my Doctrines in the particulars accused by him are heynous to every one of them , ] when I remember not any one of them that hath ever to me expressed his dissent , much less endeavoured to change my judgement , but many that have professed their approbation . His vain talk of my being lost with my friends ; by which he implyeth that they are Hypocrites in concealing it , and would make me one in seeking the applause of man. His many falshoods in his accusations of self-contradiction and mutability . 1. About Episcopacy ; 2. About Non-conformity : What he meaneth by my sheltring my self in their Tents in a storm , and with their indulgence coming forth of my hole . ] 3. Of my friendship to Calvin and Arminius . 4. Of the Parliaments cause , &c. 5. Of Tradition . 6. Of Popery . 7. Whether a Controversie may have difficult objections against plain proofs . His Catalogue of my heynous errors : A just demand from the Non-conformists , if there be any such , whom he doth not slander : and from himself . p. 288 Chap. 8. The new Religion of my Back-biters : or a Catalogue of some Doctrines of Mr. Danvers , and the rest that joyn in his accusations of my Writings , if indeed they hold the contraries to that which they accuse , as their accusations seem to suppose ; viz. fifty six New Commandments and Doctrines . The good that these men do . p. 313 Chap. 9. Mr. William Allens vindication of himself against Mr. D.'s misreport ; and my Testimony concerning Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb. p. 333 Conclusion , an Admonition to Mr. Danvers for his Repentance . p. 337 The Contents of the Third Part. Chap. 1. THE frightful aspect of his Reply . p. 345 Chap. 2. His impenitent false allegation of Witnesses against Infant-baptism . Of Tertullian ; whether Cyprians Doctrine was Antichristian . Wickliff vindicated at large , from his express words . Berengarius vindicated . p. 349 Chap. 3. Mr. D.'s justification of his slander of the Waldenses confuted . His witnesses examined , and his unfaithfulness opened ; and the case of the Waldenses more largely explicated . p. 379 Chap. 4. His impenitence in Calumniating the Donatists and Novatians as against Infant-baptism , reprehended . p. 400 Chap. 5. His renewed Calumny of the Old Brittains reproved . p. 402 Chap. 6. His rash report of Bishops Ushers censure of me , Considered . p. 404 Postscript . The Testimony of Smaragdus fully opened : And the reports of Peter Abbas Cluniacensis , and Bernard Abbas Clarevallensis . Their weak disingenuous course of Printing my words as against my self ( in a sheet called Mr. Baxters Arguments , &c. cryed about the streets ) as if the necessity of professed faith for our selves , would prove that our professed faith and dedicating them to God , were not sufficient for the baptismal reception of our Infants . p. 407 Readers , MY pain and greater business deny me time to collect the Printers Errata , though I see divers ; and therefore must leave the discerning of them to your selves . And I again admonish and intreat you , that the detection of the extraordinary falshoods and blind temerarious audacity of Mr. D. be not imputed to the whole Rebaptizing party , ( to whose Practice Gregor . Magn. paralleleth Reordaining ) ; and that his crimes abate not your Christian Love and tenderness to others , there being truly Godly , wise , and peaceable persons , worthy of our Communion , and willing of it , of that party as well as of others . Hearken not to them that would render the Party of Anabaptists odious or intolerable ; no more than to those Anabaptists who would perswade those of their opinion to renounce Communion with all others as unbaptized . It is against this dividing spirit on all sides that I Write and Preach . PART I. My private Letters to Mr. Tombes proving the Church-membership of Infants in all ages , vindicated from his unsatisfactory exceptions . The PREFACE . § . 1. THE occasion and time of these Letters is long ago published by Mr. Tombes himself in the third Part of his Anti-Paedobaptism , page 353. and forward ; where he printeth the said Letters without my consent : Had I found his Answers satisfactory , I had changed my judgement and retracted that and other such writings long ago . But I thought so much otherwise of them that I judged it not necessary , nor worth my diverting from better employment to write an answer to them . § . 2. And whatever the singular judgement of that learned and excellent Professor of Theology mentioned in his Preface , was or is concerning the arguments that I , and many before and since have used for Infant Baptism , and notwithstanding his opinion that it was introduced in the second Century , &c. yet so many wiser and better men than I , think otherwise both of the cause , and of Mr. T 's writings , that I hope the modest will allow me the honour of having very good company if I should prove mistaken . § . 3. No sober Christian will deny but that Godly men of both opinions may be saved : And then I think no such Christian that is acquainted with the History of the Church , can choose but think that there are now in Heaven many thousands , if not hundred thousands that were not against Infant Baptism , for one that was against it : And while we differ de jure , yet without great ignorance of the state of the world , we must needs agree that de facto , the number in the Church of Christ in all Nations and Ages that have been against Infant Baptism hath been so small , as that they make up but a very little part of the Church triumphant : which though I take for no proof of the truth of our opinion , yet I judge it a great reason to make me and others very fearful of turning rashly and without cogent proof to the other side . I know the Churches have still had their blemishes ; but that they should all universally so err in the subject of Baptism and Christianity it self , is not to be believed till it be proved . § . 4. Though Christ be not the Author of any of our errors , he is the healer of them , and he is the Effector as well as the Director of his Churches faith and holiness : And yet to say that though thousands or hundred thousands are in Heaven that were for Infant Baptism , for one that was against it , yet Christ was against even such a constitutive part of his Church ( as accounted ) is not to be received without good proof . § . 5. For my part I must still say , that after all that I have read for the Anabaptists , and much more than such Catalogues as Mr. Danvers , I do not at present remember that I have read of any one Christian that held the baptizing of Infants unlawful , in many and many hundred years after Christ ; at least not any that denied not Original sin : Though indeed the Pelagians themselves that did deny it much , yet denied not Infant Baptism . § . 6. But of this enough heretofore : I lay not my faith on the number of Consenters ; but in a doubtful case I think the way that almost all went that are in Heaven , and took it as the very entrance of the door of life , is safer caeteris paribus than that which few in Heaven did own : And though on earth I have more approvers than Mr. T. I think mans approbation so poor a comfort , as that I am sorry to read in his Preface and elsewhere how much he layeth upon it . Alas , were it not more for the good of others than our selves , how inconsiderable a matter were it , whether men value and honour , or despise us , and what we are thought or said of by each other , when we are all on the borders of eternity , where the honour of this world is of no signification ? § . 7. In the answer which I must give to Mr. Tombes , should I transcribe all his words , and answer every impertinent passage , I should needlesly weary the Reader and my self : I will therefore suppose the Reader to have his Book at hand , and to take his words as he hath given him them ; that I may not be blamed as concealing any of them . And I shall answer to nothing , but what seemeth to me to need an answer : And for all the rest I am content that the impartial Reader judge of them as he findeth them : For I write not for such as need an answer to every word that is written , how frivolous soever , against plain truth . Mr. Tombes his first Letter . SIR , NOt finding yet that Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership 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 April 3. 1655. Yours as is meet , John Tombes . Richard Baxters Answer . Sir , I mean to see more said against what I have already written , before I will write any more about Infant Baptism , without a more pressing call than I yet discern . I have discharged my Conscience , and shall leave you and yours to take your course . And indeed I do not understand the sense of your Letter , because you so joyn two questions in one , that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to . Whether there were any Ordinances or Law of God that Infants should be Church-members ? is one question : Whether this be repealed ? is another : you joyn both into one . For the first , that Infants were Church-members , as you have not yet denied that I know of , so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it : And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods Ordination . There are two things considerable in the matter . First , the benefit of Church-membership , with all the consequent priviledges . It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these , and not directly of a precept . Secondly , the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God , and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit ; and this is the work of a Law or Precept to constitute this duty . I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these : For you cannot imagine , that any Infant had the blessing without a grant or promise , ( that 's impossible ; ) nor that any Parents lay under a duty without an obliging law , ( for that is as impossible . ) Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolved in both these , and so yield that such a grant and precept there was , there remains no question but whether it be repealed : which I have long expected that you should prove . For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained , though more may be said than is said , yet I shall think it needless , till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you , proved to be reversed . Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts , while you confess in general , that such a promise and precept there is , by vertue of which , Infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church ( for Christs Church it was ) even his universal visible Church . Still remember that I take the word [ law ] not strictly for a precept only , but largely , as comprehending both promise and precept , and I have already shewed you both , and so have others . So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness , I , am willing to second you in , viz. that at the age you desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ , and their resolution to be his : But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here , than to spend my time to prove that no Infants of believers are within Christs visible Church , that is , are no Infant Disciples , Infant Christians , Infant Church-members . I know no glory it will bring to Christ , nor comfort to man , nor see I now any appearance of truth in it . I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy , and that I was dedicated so soon to God , and not left wholly in the Kingdom and power of the Devil . They that despise this mercy , or account it none , or not worth the accepting , may go without it , and take that which they get by their ingratitude . And I once hoped , that much less than such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen , would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made . I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers , or at least the preventing of others Apostasie : which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches . Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you , than again to write against rebaptizing , or for Infant Baptism . Sir , I remain your imperfect brother , knowing but in part , yet loving the truth , Rich. Baxter . Mr. Tombes his second Letter . Sir , I confess Infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people , in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy ( not by any promise or precept ) visible Church-members , that is , of the Congregation of Israel . I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so , but only a fact of God , which is a transeunt thing , and I think it were a foolish undertaking for me to prove the repeal of a fact . Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that Law , Ordinance , Statute or Decree of God is that is repealable , that is , which may in congruous sence be either by a later act said to be repealed , or else to be established as a law for ever . This I never found in your books , nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant ; and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where that Law is . Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers ( in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting ) of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists , I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised , and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers , as you call them . And I think you do unjustly impute the direful consequences you speak of to the denial of Infant Baptism , and to the practice of adult Baptism , and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others . I yet expect your Texts , knowing none in any of your Books that mention that law of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly , and am Bewdly , April 4. 1655. yours as is meet , John Tombes . Richard Baxters second Letter . Sir , If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work , let me request you to tell me fully , exactly and plainly , what transient fact you mean , which you conceive without law or promise did make Church-members : that so I may know where the competition lieth . When I know your meaning , I intend , God willing , to send you a speedy answer to your last . April 16. 1655. Your fellow-servant , Rich. Baxter . Mr. Tombes his third Letter . Sir , The transeunt fact of God , whereby Infants were visible Church-members , was plainly exprest in my last to you , to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people , which is the expression of Moses , Deut. 4.34 . Exod. 6.7 . And by it I mean that which is expressed Levit. 20.24.26 . when God said , I have severed you from other people , that you should be mine . The same thing is expressed 1 Kings 8.53 . Isai . 43.1 . This I term [ fact ] as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations , whereby he did accomplish it . Following herein Stephen , Acts 7.2 . and Nehem. 9.7 . I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Vr , Gen. 12.1 . to which succeeded in their times the enlarging of his family , removing of Lot , Ishmael , the sons of Keturah , Esau , distinction by Circumcision , the birth of Isaac , Jacob , his leading to Padan Aram , increase there , removal to Canaan , to Aegypt , placing , preserving there , and chiefly the bringing of them thence , to which principally the Scripture refers this fact , Exod. 19.4 . Levit. 11.45 . Nehem. 1.10 . Hos . 11.1 . the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai , giving them laws , settling their Priesthood , tabernacle , army , government , inheritance . By which fact the Infants of the Israelites were visible Church-members as being part of the Congregation of Israel , and in like manner though not with equal right ( for they might be sold away ) were the bought servants or captives , whether Infants or of age , though their Parents were professed Idolaters . And this I said was without promise or precept , meaning such promise or precept as you in your Letter say I confess , and you describe , a promise conferring to Infants the benefit of Church-membership with all the consequent priviledges , a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God , and entring into Covenant , which confers the benefit . For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham , Gen. 17.4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. and the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai , and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God , and a precept of Circumcision , and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people , and requiring them to enter into Covenant , Exod. 19. and Deut. 29. Yet no such particular promise concerning Infants visible Church-membership , or precept for Parents or others , concerning the solemn admission of Infants as visible Church-members , besides Circumcision , as in your Book of Baptism you assert . Nor do I conceive that Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the covenants or the precepts forenamed , but by Gods transeunt fact which I have described . Which I therefore term [ transeunt ] because done in time , and so not eternal , and past , and so not in congruous sence repealable as a law , ordinance , statute , decree , which determines such a thing shall be for the future , though capable of continuance in the same or the like acts , or of interruption . Which continuance or interruption is known by narration of what God hath done , not by any legal revocation , or renewing , or continuance of a promise or precept concerning that thing . Now as the Church-membership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call , and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God , Exod. 19.4 . so I conceive it ceased when upon their rejection of Christ as was fore-told Matth. 21.43 . they were broken off from being Gods people , which was compleated at the destruction of Jerusalem , when the temple was destroyed , as Christ fore-told , Luke 19.43 , 44. And instead of the Jewish people by the preaching of the Gospel confirmed by mighty signs , God gathered to himself a Church of another frame in a spiritual way , according to the institution of Christ , Matth. 28.19 , 20. Mark 16.15 , 16. in which he included not Infants , the Jews themselves were no part of the Christian Church without repentance and faith in Christ professed at least . Having now fully , exactly , and plainly told you my meaning as you request , I do now expect your speedy answer to my last , and therein to fulfil my request of setting down the particular Texts of holy Scripture wherein that law largely taken comprehending promise and precept of Infants visible Church-membership , which you assert to be unrepealed , is contained . If you shall in your answer set down wherein the blessing , benefit , and priviledges of Infants visible Church-membership , which you assert unrepealed , did consist ; I may better understand you than I do : But I shall press you no further than you shall be willing in this thing . I am Bewdley , April 21. 1655. Yours as is meet , John Tombes . Richard Baxters third Letter being long , is divided by Mr. Tombes into several sections , and his Answers accordingly divided ; which order I must therefore observe in my reply . The words of the Letter are . SECT . I. R. B. SIR , A probability of doing or receiving good , is to me a call to action . Seeing no such probability , I told you at first my purposes to forbear any further debates with you , till you had better answered what is said . In your next you seemed to deal so plainly , as if some small probability of good did yet appear : But in your third you fly off again and eat your own words , and jumble things in much confusion , so that I now return again to my former thoughts . For you that expresly say and unsay , and contradict your self , are not likely to be brought to a candid management or fair issue of the Dispute . You 'l sure think it no great matter to be driven to a self-contradiction ( which with others is to lose the Cause ) who so easily and expresly run upon it your self . " Mr. T 's Answer , It was a call sufficient , &c. Reply . I must be the discerner of my own Call or Reasons to write : time is precious : As for his offence at Mr. M. and Mr. Firmin for charging him with sophistry , and at Mr. Ford for charging him with railing , and Mr. Gataker for doubting it is his disposition to braze his forehead ; and his own angry words hereupon , they concern not our present business . SECT . II. R. B. IN your second you say [ I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people , in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy , not by any promise or precept , then visible Church-members , that is , of the Congregation of Israel ; I do not confess , that there was any Law or Ordinance determining it should be so , but only a fact of God , which is a transeunt thing , &c. ] In your third you say , [ For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham , Gen. 17.4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. and the Covenants made with Israel at mount Sinai , and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God , and a precept of Circumcision , and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people , and requiring of them to enter into Covenant , Exod. 19. & Deut. 29. yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Church-membership , or precept for Parents or others concerning the solemn admission of Infants as visible Church-members besides Circumcision , as in your book of Baptism you assert . ] Before there was no [ Law or Ordinance determining it should be so , but only a fact ] now there are Laws or precepts and promises that it should be so , but [ not such as I assert in my book . ] And if I should shew you never so many , you may reply , they are not such as I assert in my book , and waste the time in that trial , when it is better for me to see first what you say to that book : For this is but to lead us about to trifling . Mr. T 's Answer . There is no shadow of a contradiction , &c. Reply . Let the impartial Reader judge . SECT . III. R. B. TO make any clear work upon the things in question , we must necessarily speak to the questions distinctly , many of which you too much confound . The first question in order fit to be resolved is , [ whether Infants before Christs incarnation were Church-members , or not ? ] you grant they were : and therefore this is past dispute with us . The second question and the first resolved , is [ what Church it is that Infants were members of ? ] This you give me occasion to take in the way , because you twice explain your meaning , when you confess them Church-members , by an [ i. e. of the congregation of Israel . ] By which you seem to imply two things : First , that none but the Infants of the Congreation of Israel were Church-members : Secondly , that the infants of Israel were members of no Church but what is convertible with the congregation of Israel . ] The third question is , what it is that gives the Israelites that denomination of [ the Congregation of Israel ] of which Infants were members ? For you jumble both together , both causes Civil , and Ecclesiastical , and of both those that make to the being and well-being . So that our enquiry must be , whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense ? ] and what constituteth it formally ? For in this you speak in dark ambiguities . The fourth question is , [ Whether there was any Law , Ordinance or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein , or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement , and so to membership ; and any promise , grant or Covenant , conferring the right of Church-membership and the consequent priviledges to Infants ? ] To this you say both Yea and Nay , if I can understand you , or at least as to much of the question concerning the being , and part of the effect of the precept and promise . Yet you conclude , that you [ do not conceive that Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the Covenants , or the precepts fore-named , but by Gods transeunt fact . ] I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant , because your tying the effect to the transeunt fact doth exclude them . Here we are cast upon these questions next . The fifth question , [ Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant , ( or as I shall prove ) which yet make not Infants Church-members ? ] The sixth question , [ Whether there be any transeunt fact of God , which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the Infants of Israel Church-members ? ] The seventh question , [ Whether those which you have assigned be such facts ? ] The eighth question , [ Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws , precepts , or grants which I maintain ? ] this you insist upon . The ninth question , [ Whether such laws , preceps or grants as I shall prove , are capable of a repal or revocation ? ] The tenth question , [ Whether they are actually revoked or repealed ? ] Mr. T 's Answer . The eighth question is the only question needful to be resolved , &c. Reply . If I do too much it is but your passing it by , and it will not trouble you . SECT . IV. R. B. BEfore all these questions are well handled , we should easily be convinced that it had been better either to have let all alone , or else , if we must needs have the other bout , at least to have agreed on our terms , and the stating of the questions better before we had begun . And I think that even that is not easie to do . For when I desired your plain , exact and full explication of one word [ transeunt fact ] and you tell me you have plainly , fully and exactly told me your meaning : It falls out , either through the unhappy darkness of my own understanding , or yours , that I know but little more of your mind than I did before , and that you seem to me to have raised more doubts and darkness than you have resolved and dissipated . Yet being thus far drawn in , I shall briefly say somewhat to the several questions , not following your desires to answer one alone : which cannot be done to any purpose while the foregoing are unresolved , because it is the clearing up of truth , and not the serving of your present ends in your writings now in hand that I must intend . Mr. T 's Answer . I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler — so many doubts seem not to be from the darkness of the understanding , but either from the lightness of the fancy , or the bent of the will , to find a way to blunt the Readers attention , &c. Reply . This is not the Controversie : Is your judgement alike right of persons as of Doctrines ? SECT . V. R. B. THE first question being resolved that Infants were once Church-members , to the resolving of the second question , I shall prove these two Propositions . 1. That it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members . 2. The Infants of Israel were members of the universal visible Church , and not only of that particular Congregation . The first I have proved already in my book . And 1. Isaac was a Church-member , yet none of the Congregation of Israel ; it was not Israel till Jacobs days . If you say that by the [ Congregation of Israel ] you mean [ the seed of Abraham which had the promise of Canaan ] Yet 2. I say , that Ishmael and Abrahams seed by Keturah and Esau had none of the promise , and yet were Church-members in their infancy . [ In Isaac shall thy seed be called ] that is , that seed which had the promise of Canaan . And so it was confined to Jacob , who got the blessing and the birthright , which Esau lost , and was excluded , yet was of the Church from his infancy . The Son of the bond-woman was not to be heir with the Son of the free-woman , yet was Ishmael an Infant member . If you say , that by [ the Congregation of Israel ] you mean all the natural seed of Abraham : I add , 3. The children of his bond-men born in his family , or bought with mony , were none of Abrahams natural seed , and yet were Church-members in their infancy . If you go yet further , and say , that by [ the Congregation of Israel ] you mean all that were at the absolute dispose of Abraham or his successors , and so were his own : I add , 4. The Infants of free Proselytes were none such , and yet were Church-members . If you yet go further , and say , that you mean by [ the Congregation of Israel ] any that came under the government of Abraham or his successors : then I add , 5. That the Sichemites , Gen. 34. were not to ●ome under Jacobs government , but to be his allies and neighbours , being so many more in number than Jacob , that they concluded rather that his cattle and substance should be theirs ; yet were they circumcised every male , and so were made members of the visible professing Church . For it was not the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to , without the thing signified : For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised , was not in the defect of the external abscission ; for so Moses own son , and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach , and all the females continually : But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God , and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did . And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing , if it be not used for engagement to God , even into his name ; so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision , unless it be used as an engaging sign , and they be circumcised to God. Mr. T 's Answer . By [ the Congregation of Israel ] I mean the same with the Hebrew people or house of Abraham — by an anticipation , &c. Reply . 1. That not only the Infants of Abrahams house were Church-members shall be proved . 2. Here he is forced to take in the Children of Keturah , Ishmael , and Esau , into [ the Congregation of Israel ] ; And so to extend Infants Church-membership further than the Jews Common-wealth . For let the Reader judge , whether the posterity of Ishmael , Esau and Keturah were of that Republick , or Proselytes either , and not usually enemies . 3. He is forced to extend Infants Church-membership to whole Cities that would be but their Allies , as the Sichemites were : For when he saith [ They were one people ] by consent , he could not say that they were to be their subjects and so members of their Republick . And they may be [ one people ] by mixture and confederacy , without subjection . And there is no intimation that the Sichemites were to part with their former Governours and be subject to Jacob . And then if all the Kingd●ms about would but have been accordingly Jacobs confederates , it seems Mr. T. must yield that their Infants had been visible Church-members . SECT . VI. R. B. IT was then the duty of all the Nations round about ( if not of all the Nations on earth , that could have information of the Jewish Religion ) to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision . That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jews must do it , is commonly confessed : that it must extend to Infants , the case of the Sichemites ( though deceitfully drawn to it by some of Jacobs sons ) doth shew , and so doth the Jewish practice which they were to imitate : that the same engagement to the same God is the duty of all the world , is commonly acknowledged , though Divines are not agreed whether the distant nations were obliged to use Circumcision the Jewish sign . The best of the Jews were zealous to make Proselytes , and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their best for the salvation of others . To think such charitable and holy works unlawful , is to think it evil to do the greatest good . And if they must perswade the neighbour nations to come in to God by Covenant engagement , they must perswade them to bring their children with them , and to devote them to God as well as themselves . For the Jews kn●w no other covenanting or engaging to God. As the Sichemites must do , so other nations must do : For what priviledge had the children of the Sichemites above the rest of the world ? Mr. T 's Answer . The argument in form would be thus : If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by circumcision , then it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members , &c. Reply . 1. You should have said [ that would have been Church-members had they done that duty ] . But you can best serve your own turn . 2. One Supream Power maketh one Republick ( with the subjects ) ; And many Soveraigns make many Republicks ( as all grant ) : Therefore if all the Nations about had engraffed themselves into the Congregation of Israel but as the Sichemites did , they had not made one Republick , as to humane Soveraignty : I presume to tell you my thoughts of such a case ( and so of the Sichemites ) : It was the glory of Israel to be a Theocracy : God was their Soveragin ; not only as he was of all the world ( de jure and by overruling their humane Soveraign : ) but by special Revelation doing the work a Soveraign himself : He made them Laws ( and not Moses ) : He appointed them Captains under him by Revelation : He decided cases by Oracle : He gave them Judges that were Prophets , and acted by his extraordinary spirit . Though Moses is called a King , he was but an Official Magistrate , Captain and Prophet : [ A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you like unto me , &c. ] saith he : which had immediate respect to the form of Government and manner of succession , ( as differing from the way of Kings which the Israelites sinfully preferred afterward , casting off this special Theocracy ) though ultimately it intended Christ . Now , this being so , the Sichemites or any other nations who would have taken God for their Soveraign , and come under this special prophetical Theocracy , ( which Circumcision engaged them to as respecting the Laws to which it bound them ) had been so far united to Israel . But how far might this have extended ? To the rest that he saith I consent . If you will not hold to this you must say that the Sichemites were to be of the same Communitie with Israel , and not of the same Republick , which signifieth either ungoverned Communities or various Republicks confederating . SECT . VII . R. B. IN Hesters time many of the people became Jews , Hest . 8.17 . who yet were not under their government . And to be Jews is to be of the Jewish profession . And it is well known that this was to be circumcised , they and their little ones ( as the Proselytes were ) and so to keep the Law of Moses . Mr. T 's Answer . — They were incorporated into the Jewish people , &c. Reply . This needeth no reply but what is given to the former . SECT . VIII . R. B. THE scattered and captivated Jews themselves were from under the Government of Abrahams successors , and yet were to Circumcise their children as Church-members . Mr. T 's Answer is the same , and the Reply the same . SECT . IX . R. B. WHen Jonas preached to Ninive , it was all the race of man among them , without exception , from the greatest to the least , that was to fast and join in the humiliation : Ergo , all , even Infants as well as others , were to partake of the remission . If you say , the beasts were to fast too : I answer , as they were capable in their kind of part of the curse , so were they of part of the benefit , but their capacity was not as mans : They fasted to manifest mans humiliation . And if by the humiliation of the aged the beasts sped the better in their kind , no wonder if Infants sped the better in theirs , and according to their capacities , and that was to have a remission suitable to their sin . Mr. T 's Answer . Neither aged nor infants were visible Church-members , &c. Reply . This only proveth by parity of Reason , their capacity of it , and that they would have been such , if they had truely turned to God : which yet I cannot say that many of them did not according to the terms of the Common Covenant of Grace made with Adam and Noe , though they came not under the Covenant of peculiarity : And if so ( as Repentance is to be interpreted in the best sense till the contrary be proved ) I leave it to the Reader , whether Gods laying on the Infants their share ( as capable ) in the humiliation , imply not such a share as they are capable of in the benefit ? And the case of the Israelites Infants sheweth what they were capable of . Mr. T 's denial is no disproof . SECT . X. R. B. WHat I have said of Sem and many others , and their posterity already , I shall not here again repeat : and more will be said anon to the following questions . Mr. T 's Answer is none , and needs no Reply . SECT . XI . R. B. THE second proposition to be proved is , 〈…〉 Israelites children were 〈◊〉 of ●he u●●versal visible Church of Christ as well ●s ●● the Congregation of Israel ] But this you did heretofore acknowledge , and therefore I suppose will not now deny . I suppose it past controversie between us ; 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth . As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced , and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ , Heb. 11.26 . and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ , and searched diligently , and prophesied of the grace to come ; and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time , and testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ , and the glory that should follow , 1 Pet. 1.10 , 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ , and members of the body of Christ , and given for the edification of that body : Though it was revealed to them that the higher priviledges of the Church after the coming of Christ , were not for them but for us , 1 Pet. 1.12.2 . I suppose it agreed on also between us , that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall , but the Church of Christ , and therefore either Infants were members of Christs Church , or of no Church of Gods institution . Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two , but one Church . For Moses was ChristsVsher , and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ : And though the foolish Jews by mis-understanding them made a separation , and made Moses Disciples to be separate from Christs Disciples , and so set up the alone [ shadows of things to come , yet the body is all of Christ ] Col. 2.17 . and by so doing they violated Gods institution , and unchurcht themselves . 3. I suppose it agreed also , that Christs Church is but one , and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible , yet make up one body . 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal . ( Though the Church was more eminently called Catholick , when the wall of separation was taken down . ) But I remember I have proved this in my Book , part . 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now . Mr. T 's Answer . The two first are granted . To the third , Though whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal ; yet it follows not , ( which Mr. B. drives at , and vainly talks of his proving ) that every one who was a member of the universal Church , in that he was a member of the Jewish Church . particular , was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ . 2. Nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church , in that he was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ , was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church , &c. Reply . 1. None of this ever came into my thoughts which he untruly saith I drive at , &c. What sober man could imagine either of these assertions ? What pittiful abuse of ignorant Readers is this ? 2. And what a poor put off to the point in hand ? That which I said is but that all particular visible Churches and members , make up one visible universal Church , and therefore every visible member of any particular Church is a member of the universal ? He durst not deny this , and yet a slander serveth his turn . SECT . XII . R. B. COncerning the matter of the third question . I assert that [ it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants wer● members , but of the Church distinct from it . This is proved sufficiently in what is said before . Mr. T 's Answer . As yet I find it not prove that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Common-wealth , or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of th● Common-wealth . Reply . 1. It is only a formal and not a material distinction that I medled with : The formal reason of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ , at least after the choice of Kings , when the Republick was constituted by a humane head : Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuspie's Aarons Rod ; If the Jews Common-wealth be specified as a Theocracy from God the Soveraign , the Sichemites were of it , and other nations might . 2. But many say that some were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church , though not contrarily : And be they distinct or not , it sufficeth me that Infants were of the Church . SECT . XIII , XIV , XV , XVI . R. B. MOreover , 1. Infants were Church-members in Abrahams family before Circumcision , and after when it was no Common-wealth . So they were in Isaacs , Jacobs , &c. 2. The banished , captivated , scattered Jews , that ceased to be members of their Common-wealth , yet ceased not to be of their Church . 3. The people of the Land , that became Jews in Hesters time , joyned not themselves to their Common-wealth : Nor the Sichemites . 4. Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Common-wealth . Mr. T. affirmeth them all to have been Common-wealths . Answer . The word being ambiguous may in a large sense be extended to a family , and to a scattered people that have no Soveraign ; but is not so usually taken . SECT . XVII . R. B. THE Children of Abraham by Keturah , when they were removed from his family were not unchurched ; and yet were no members of the Jews Common-wealth . But I shall take up with what is said for this already , undertaking more largely to manifest it , when I perceive it necessary and useful . Mr. T 's Answer . Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched ; at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews . Reply . 1. What a wide gap doth that [ at least ] make you , yet to say , They were a Church or no Church , as you please ? 2. Reader , use Scripture but impartially , and in the fear of God , and I will leave it to thy Conscience to judge whether it be credible , that when God had foretold that Abraham would command his children and houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord , Gen. 18.19 . and when Ishmael , Keturahs children , and Esau , were circumcised by Gods command , and God had yet promised the Political peculiarities specially to Isaac , and Jacob , yet God would have all the grandchildren of Ishmael , Keturah , Esau to be uncircumcised : and all their posterity to cease that usage , as soon as they were out of Abrahams house : when yet History assureth us that they long continued it : Or whether God would have them circumcised and yet be no Church-members ? Believe as evidence constraineth thee . SECT . XVIII . R. B. TO the fourth question I assert that [ 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant with God , by accepting his favour , and re-ingaging and devoting them to God , and so entring them solemnly Church-members . ] And [ 2. there was a Covenant , promise or grant of God , by which he offered the Church-membership of some Infants and actually conferred it , where his offer was accepted . ] I should have mentioned this first , and therefore will begin with the proof of this . By these terms Covenant , promise , grant , or deed of gift , &c. we understand that which is common to all these , viz. [ A sign of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit ] such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal . I call it [ a sign of Gods will de jure ] because ●hat is the general nature of all his legal moral acts : they are all signal determinations de debito , ●f some due . 2. I say conferring or confirming ●ight to some benefit ] to difference it from pre●epts which only determine what shall be due from us to God , and from threatnings , which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us . Mr. T. — If we prove by another grant or deed of gift Physical or Moral which is not a promise , or by any Law which is not such a precept , he contradicts not my speech , &c. Reply . Your words are [ I do not confess that there was any Law or Ordinance determining that it should be so ( that Infants should be members of the Jewish Church ) but only a fact of God which is a transeunt thing , and I think it were a foolish undertaking to prove the repeal of a fact . ] Peruse his words Reader . SECT . XIX , XX , XXI . R. B. HAving thus explained the terms , I prove the proposition . If Infants Church-membership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred , which some had right to or in , then was there some grant , covenant , or promise , by which this right was conferred : But the antecedent is most certain : Ergo , so is the consequent . I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God , to have the Lord engaged to be their God , and to take them for his people , to be brought so near him , and to be separated from the common and unclean , from the world , and from the strangers to the Covenant of promises , that live as without God in the world , and without hope . If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision ? I suppose you would say , much every way . If Infant Church-membership were no benefit , then they that had it , were not ( when they came to age or their Parents in the mean time ) obliged to any thankfulness for it . But they were obliged to be thankful for it . Ergo , it was a benefit . Mr. T. Denyeth not the benefit ; but denyeth [ that this is to be Visible members formally or connexively , for they may have all this benefit who are not visible Church-members : viz. some believing Saints that are dumb . Reply . Mark Reader , what an issue our Controversies with these men come to ? [ Men may be the covenanted people of God , and have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people , and be separated from the common and unclean , from the world , from strangers to the Covenant , &c. and yet be no visible Church-members ] with them ! Doth a dumb man signifie his consent to the Covenant by any signs or not ? If he do , that is visible covenanting . If not , how is he one of these covenanting and separated people ? And do you think that Mr. T. knew not that I talk to him of visible covenanting and separation , and not only of a secret unexpressed heart-consent : What will make a Church-member then with such men ? He next saith that [ To be the circumcision is not all one as to be visible Church-members ; Cornelius and his house were visible Church-members , yet not the circumcision ] . Reply . Reader , dost thou not marvail to find him so plead for me against himself , or speak nothing to the case ? To be circumcised then , or baptized now , is not all one as to be visible Church-members : But sure all the Circumcised were , and all the Baptized are , invested in visible membership ? Is it not so ? And if Cornelius and more of the uncircumcised also were members , you see it was not inseparable from Circumcision . And whom is this against , me or him ? He addeth [ nor were the benefits , Rom. 3.1 , 2. ( the oracles of God , &c. ) conferred to them as visible Church-members : For then all visible Church-members had been partakers of them ] . Reply . But it was to them as members of the Jewish visible Church : And if you plead for the extent of the Church to others also , I thank you for it . When I say [ Infant Church-membership was a benefit ] He saith [ Visible Church-membership simply notes only a state , by which was a benefit . ] Reply . Only , is an exclusive term : Reader , by this thou maist perceive the mystery of making Church-members by a transeunt fact , without a Law or promise . It is no benefit with these men , but a state by which was a benefit . Either they or I then know not at all what Church-membership is : And are not all our Volumes wisely written to trouble the world , about that Subject that we are not agreed what it is , and about a term which we agree not of the sense of ? I take a visible Church-member to be a visible member of Christ as Head of the Church and of his Church as visible ? To be a Member is to be a Part : It is therefore as the member of a Family , School , Kingdom , a related part ! And is it no benefit in it self besides the consequents to be visibly united and related to Christ and his body ? to be relatively a member of the Houshold of God ? Sure were it but for the exclusion of the miserie of the contrary state , and for the Honour of it , such a Relation to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and the Church , is some little benefit : ( and great to me . ) And whether he and Major Danvers and such others should make such a vehement stir about it as they do , if it be no benefit , let it be considered . SECT . XXII . R. B. THE next thing in the antecedent to be proved is , that there was a right conferred to this benefit , and some had a right in it . And 1. If any had the benefit , then had they right to or in that benefit : But some had the benefit , Ergo. The consequence of the major is certain . 1. Because the very nature of the benefit consisteth in a right to further benefits . 2. If any had the benefit of Church-membership , Covenant-interest , &c. without right ; then they had it with Gods consent and approbation or without it . Not with it : For he is just , and consenteth not that any have that which he hath not some right to or in : Not without it : For no man can have a benefit from God against his will , or without it . 2. If no Infants had duly and rightfully received this benefit , God would have somewhere reprehended the usurpation and abuse of his ordinances or benefits . But that he doth not as to this case , Ergo. 3. God hath expressed this right in many Texts of Scripture , of which more afterward . Mr. T. The Infants of the Jews were visisible Church-members , not by a Legal right to it , antecedent to their being such visible Church-members which they or any for them might claim as due : Nor was it capable of being duly and rightfully received or usurped : For it was nothing but a state of appearing to be part of that people , who were in appearance from things sensible , Gods people ; and this they had by Gods fact of making them to be a part of that people visibly , viz. his forming them and bringing them into the world , and placing them , — Reply . More mystery still ! 1. Was there no antecedent Law or Covenant of God , giving a jus societatis a Right of membership to Abrahams seed as soon as they had a being initially , and commanding them to be devoted to God in Covenant , and Circumcised , that they by investiture might have a plenary Right ? Was there no such thing ? O but [ this gave them not a right to it before they had it . ] Is the poor Church to be thus abused , and holy things thus played with ? They could not be members before they had a being ; nor could lay claim to it : But could not Gods Law , Grant or Instrumental Covenant be made before they were born ? And could it not be the Instrument of conveying right to them as soon as they were born ? that is , as soon as they were subjects capable ? And is not the cause in order of nature , though not of time before the effect ? Cannot the Law of the Land be the fundamental cause of the Right of Infants to Honours and Estates , though till they are in being they are not capable subjects ? Is not the Action ut agentis naturally antecedent to it as in patiente ? Is it only Gods transeunt fact of making them men and these men , and placing them in England , which maketh Infants to be members of the English Nobility , or Gentry or Citizens or members of this Kingdom ? No ; but it is the Laws that do morally give the Jus dignitatis , vel societatis , though their action be not terminated in any subject till it exist . For every man born in England is not born a Lord , or Esquire , or Citizen , no nor a free subject , unless the Law say it shall be so . If Foreigners or Rebels should have children here , and the Law were that they shall be Aliens , they would be no members of the Kingdom . If Mr. T. or Mr. D's children have nothing but Generation , and being born in England to shew for their Inheritance , their Title will not hold . 2. And might not right have been falsly pleadded or usurped by a counterfeit Jew ? Or the children of such ? Or the children of Apostates ? who yet were born of Abrahams seed , and in that Land ? Whatsoever they were that Nehemiah used severely , I am sure Achans children , and the Infants of the Cities that were to be consumed for Idolatry , lost their right to life and Church-membership at once by their Parents sin : And God might if he had pleased , have continued the Life of Apostates children , without continuing their Church-right ; Or Apostates might ( and no doubt multitudes did ) escape the justice of the Law through the fault of Magistrates or people , and yet have no true Legal Right to Church-membership for themselves or Infants ( born after ) : For he that hath lost his right to life , hath lost his right ( or may do ) to the priviledges and benefits of it . He addeth [ yet I grant , they had a right in it , that is , that they had it by Gods donation . ] Reply . And was it not a Moral Donation then , if it gave Right ? You will be forced thus to confute your self . Mr. T. It seems to me not true , that the nature of the benefit of Infants visible membership consisteth in a right to further benefits . Reply . Yet he giveth not a word to tell us why he thinketh so . If we are at this pass about Relations and Right in general , no marvail if Infant Baptism go for Antichristian : Doth not the Relative state of a Citizen , or of the member of any priviledged society , consist in his state of Right to the Benefits , Priviledges and Communion of the Society , and an obligation to the duties of a member , to the end he may have the benefits , and the Society the benefit of his membership and duty ? A conjunction of Right ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) and obligation constituteth all such Relations . But what shall we be agreed in that are ignorant and differ here ? Next Mr. T. denieth the consequence , [ For a man may have a benefit without right . ] Reply . 1. And yet just now , Church-membership in Israel was a thing that none could usurp , or have without right ? 2. But I said [ no man can have a benefit from God against his will or without it : ] And therefore if God give such a thing as Church-membership which consisteth in a Right to further benefits , he that hath it by Gods gift hath it rightfully : Natural effects ( as a prey to a thief ) may be said to be given of God improperly , by Physical disposal , to him that hath no right : But right it self cannot be given to him that hath no right ; nor any thing else , Relative or Natural , by Gods Moral or Covenant donation . He [ conceiveth it to be very erroneous that visible Church-membership is given out of distributive Justice ; for as Regeneration , so also visible membership are of bounty by God as Soveraign Lord , not of distributive Justice by God as Judge . 2. That all that any man hath of God he hath of debt , contrary to Rom. 4.4 . 3. That visible Church-membership is conceived as a thing offered , and to be duly and rightfully received Reply . If Mr. T. and I shall tire the Printer , and wast Paper , and trouble the world , with telling them how many errors each of us hold , it will be an unsavory task , and I doubt it would be a much shorter work for one of us , ( which ever it is ) to enumerate the useful truths we hold . What I hold , be it right or wrong , I will tell the Reader as to this matter . I hold that Gods Kingdom is to be considered in its Constitution and Administration : The first hath , 1. The efficient , 2. The Constitutive , 3. The final Causes : And in the large sense it containeth , 1. Subjects only by obligation , ( such as Rebels are ) 2. Subjects by consent , ( or voluntary ) . The Efficient cause of the former is only Gods 1. Making them men , and Redeemed men quoad precium , and commanding their subjection or consent . To the effecting of the second is besides these required their Actual Consent ( Parents consenting for their Infants ) , without which they are but Rebels , and have no right to the benefits of the Society . God being a King de jure before his Government is Consented to , maketh a Law to man to command them to consent and be his voluntary subjects : To those that consent ( as the condition ) he promiseth the interest and blessings of his Covenant , viz. Christ and Life ; and threatneth the privation of those benefits , and sorer punishment to refusing rebels : He is Lawgiver and will be Judge of Non-consenters ; called , Vnbelievers and refusers of Christ and Salvation : When men do consent they are under his further Administring Laws . The said efficient causes are Gods Actions , 1. As Omnipotent Owner , 2. As Benefactor , 3. As Sapiential Rector . 1. According to the first , he giveth us our Being and preserveth it , and in him we Live , and Move , and Are. 2. As our Benefactor antecedent to his Administration , he gave the world a Redeemer absolutely , and reprieved the world and us , and giveth us all common Antecedent Mercies . 3. As the Rector de jure of men not yet consenting , he maketh the Law of Grace absolutely and antecedently to any condition ( of making it ) on our part . This Law hath the preceptive part , commanding consent ( faith and repentance ) . 2. The Donative or promissory part , giving us Christ in Relation , and right to his present benefits , if we consent ; which is the condition . 3. And the penalty aforesaid . The Administration of the Kingdom de jure , is the efficient of the consenting Kingdom : The Administration ( or Actual Government ) of the Consenting Kingdom , is by Legislation , Judgement and Execution . And the Legislation is , 1. For the constitution of the particular members that shall from time to time be added : 2. And the Governing of them all . Now if God have made a Law that men shall be received members of Christ and his Church if they consent ( or Repent and Believe ) and formerly to the Israelites , if they be Consenters ( or their seed , who consent by them ) then it is an act of distributive justice of God as Judge , to give these benefits to Consenters : And to contradistinguish an act of bounty unless he say [ meer bounty ] is intolerable . For God governeth us Paternally , as a Regent-benefactor : He never gave reward to a Creature , Man or Angel , which was not a Gift as to the value of the thing , and a Reward only as to the ordo conferendi & ratio recipiendi : It is madness to think that we can merit from God commutatively . And it 's little better to think that bounty and distributive justice may not consist ; yea that there can be any right quoad ordinem distribuendi from that justice , which is not quoad rem donatam from bounty . It is sad therefore that the world must see , that looking all how to make good an espoused cause , should tempt so Ancient and Learned a Divine to subvert the Gospel and all Christianity : For what doth he less ? If he talk only of members by obligation , every living man is a member : This he meaneth not . If he talk only of Consenting voluntary Members , to say that God commandeth none to be such , is to say that he commandeth none to be Christians , to Repent , Believe or Consent : To say that he hath made no promise or Donative Act in the Law of Grace , that if you consent ( repent and believe ) you shall have union with Christ and his Church ( or be members ) is to deny the very summ of all the Gospel , and Baptism it self . To say that God doth not as Judge execute his own Law and promise , giving this union to Consenters , and denying it to Refusers , is to say that he will not as a Judge absolve Believers or condemn Vnbelievers . O Reader , hate faction and partial disputes that can make men overthrow all Christianity , not knowing what they do . 2. And his denying that visible Church-membership is a thing offered , and rightly to be accepted , is the same , even to deny that Christ inviteth any Infidel to become a Christian , or ever called or commanded Heathens to believe : or sent his Ministers to compel them to come in , that his house may be filled . But his slander that I say all that man hath from God is of debt , is forged groundlesly . I say God giveth some benefits antec●dently and absolutely , and some consequently on condition , by a Law : And none of them all are of debt as a workman deserveth his wages with commutative justice . It is his gross error that visible Church-membership of Infants among the Jews was not a thing offered on condition of Parents faith , and to be accepted or refused ; but a state resulting from Gods fact . He feigneth a Church to be formally quid Physicum sure ! He that would not consent to the Covenant was by Asa to be put to death : And was not Circumcision a covenanting act ? And did they not thereby profess to take God for their God ? or would God else have taken them for his people ? And would not renouncing God have cut them off ? And would their seed then have had any right for being theirs ? Indeed it is disputable how far some Ancestors , or other Proprietors might be a medium of right to such Apostates seed : but as theirs , there is no dispute . SECT . XXIII . R. B. I Am next to prove the consequence , that [ this right was conferred by some grant , promise , or Covenant of God. ] And this is as easie as to prove that the world was made by Gods power and efficiency or will ; or to prove that God is the owner of all things , and no man can receive them but by his gift . 1. If there be no other way possible for right to be conveyed from God to us , but only by his grant , promise , or Covenant , ( which we call donation , and is a moral civil action , ) then it is by this means that it is conveyed . But there is no other possible way of such conveyance : Ergo , we have no right till God give us right . His will signified createth our right . No man can have right to that which is wholly and absolutely anothers , but by his consent or will. This will is no way known , but by some signs of it . These signs of such a will for conveyance of right to a benefit , are a civil moral action , called a donation or gift simply . If the sign be in writing , we commonly call it a deed of gift . If it be by word of mouth , conferring a present right , we call it a verbal grant or gift . If it confer only a future right , we call it a promise , and sometimes a Covenant ; and sometimes the word Covenant signifieth both , that act which gives a present right , and promiseth a continuance of it . Right being a moral or civil thing , can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action . A gift that was never given , is a contradiction . So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four . Mr. T. Visible Church-membership is not a Right , but a state of Being ; as to be strong , healthy , rich , &c. which are not given by a civil moral action , but by Providence of God acting Physically as the Soveraign disposer of all . — I deny therefore that there is such a promise — Reply . Reader , it is not long of me that this Learned Ancient Divine knoweth not what a Church-member is , or else what is the difference between Ethicks , or Politicks , and Physicks . But it is our shame that a Preacher in England should be sound so ignorant . God as the Fountain of nature , and Omnipotent Lord of all , is indeed the first Cause of Being and Motion as such : As a free Benefactor he is the first Cause of all our Good as such ; And as a Sapiential Rector , and Benefactor conjunctly ( that is , by Paternal government ) he is the first cause of Right . Being and Motion are the effects of Physical efficiency : Jus vel Debitum is the very formal effect or object of Moral Efficiency by a Rector , and the formal object of Ethicks . To be a Church-member , is to have a stated Relation , consisting in Right to the Benefits and obligation to the duty , as was said before . He denieth this to be any Right , and to have any such Civil-moral cause as Right hath , but to be quid Physicum as Health , strength , Riches , and an answerable Physical cause . Let the shame of this ignorance reform the common error of Schools that teach not their children betimes the principles of Ethicks , Politicks , or Governing Order : It is a shame that at 16. years old any should be so ignorant as these words import . I must speak it , or I comply with the powers of darkness , that so shamefully oppose the truth . SECT . XXIV . XXV . R. B. 2. GOD hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right : which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it . The second Proposition to be proved , is , that [ there was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant and Church-membership , by accepting of his offer , and re-engaging them to God. ] And this is as obvious and easie as the former . But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms . The word [ Law ] is sometimes taken more largely , and unfitly , as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God , considered without any sign to represent it to the creature . So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law : which indeed is no law , nor can be fitly so called . 2. It is taken properly for [ an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando . ] And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law . Some define it , [ Jussum majestatis obligans aut ad obedientiam aut ad poenam . ] But this leaves out the premiant part , and some others : So that of Grotius doth , Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est . I acquiesce in the first , or rather in this , which is more full and exact ; [ A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness . ] That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando , is the general nature of all laws . Some quarrel at the word [ sign ] because it is logical and not political : As if Politicians should not speak logically as well as other men ! There is a twofold due : 1. What is due from us to God ( or any Rector ; ) and this is signified in the precept and prohibition , ( or in the precept de agendo & non agendo . ) 2. What shall be due to us ; and this is signified by promises , or the premiant part of the law , and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties . All benefits are given us by God in a double relation , both as Rector and Benefactor : or as Benefactor Regens ; or as Rector benefaciens : though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God , they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein . The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right : afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former , or to do the same thing : and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former , or to revive the memory of them , or to excite to the obedience of them : And these do not properly constitute duty , because it was constituted before ; but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it , and therefore doth confirm the constitution , and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before . For obligations to one and the same duty may be multiplied . 3. Some take the word [ law ] in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts , especially directed but to one ; or a few men ; and will only call that a law which is written , or at least a well known custom obliging a whole society in a stated way . These be the most eminent sort of laws : but to say that the rest are no laws , is vain and groundless , against the true general definition of a Law , and justly rejected by the wisest Politicians . That which we are now to enquire after , is a precept , or the commanding part of a law , which is [ a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty , ] of which signs there are materially several sorts , as 1. by a voice , that 's evidently of God : 2. by writing : 3. by visible works or effects : 4. by secret impresses , as by inspiration , which is a law only to him that hath them . Mr. T. I assert , 1. There is no such offer , promise or Covenant : 2. That though there are precepts for Parents to pray for their Children , to breed them up yet they are not bound to believe this , that upon their own faith God will take their Infant Children to be his , and will be a God to them , nor to accept of this pretended offer . 3. That though Parents may enter into Covenant for their Children — as Deut. 29.12 . they do not by this make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God will be their God. Reply . What a deal of the Gospel and the Churches mercys do these men deny ? 1. The very nature of our own Holy Covenant is , that in it we give up to God our selves and all that is ours according to the capacity of that all . And as our Riches are devoted hereby as capable utensils ; so our Infants as capable of Infant Relation , Obligation and Right . What is it that a sanctified man must not devote to God that is His ? If you except Liberty , Health , Life , you are hypocrites : And can you except Children ? It 's true ; this is but so far as they are our own , and we say no more : when they have a will to choose for themselves , they must do it . 2. I have fully proved Scripture commands for Parents to offer their Children to God , and that signifieth his will to accept what he commandeth them to offer . And his promises to shew mercy to them as theirs are plain and many , which I must not tire the Reader with repeating . Mr. T. addeth , That if there were such a promise and duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging , yet this neither did then nor doth now make Infants visible Church-members . Reply . Reader , are not the Anabaptists ductile men where they like , as well as intractable where they dislike , that they will follow such a Leader as this ? Promise and Duty of accepting and re-engaging aggravateth the sin of Rebels that reject it ; but if these performed , even visible mutual covenanting , make not Church-members visible , what doth ? You see what he hath brought the ancient and later Church-membership , Circumcision and Baptism to ? I think to nothing : As formal Pontifician Church-tyrants when they have mortified some ordinance , and turned it into an Image , make an engine of it to trouble the Church , and silence the Preachers and serious practisers of the Gospel with . These men make nothing of Church-membership , and then restlesly trouble the Church-about it . SECT . XXVI . R. B. HAving thus opened the terms [ Law and Precept , ] I prove the Proposition thus . 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their Children , to engage and devote them to him in Covenant , then there was a Law or Precept which made this their duty , and obliged them to it . But it was a duty : Ergo , there was such a Law or Precept . For the antecedent , 1. If it were not a duty , then it was either a sin , or a neutral indifferent action : But it was not a sin , ( for , 1. It was against no Law , 2. It is not reprehended ; ) nor was it indifferent , for it was of a moral nature , and ergo , either good or evil , yea sin or duty : For properly permittere is no act of Law , ( though many say it is , ) but a suspension of an act : and so licitum is not moraliter bonum , but only non malum ; and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality . 2. If there be a penalty ( and a most terrible penalty ) annexed for the non-performance , then it was a duty : But such a penalty was annexed ( as shall anon be particularly shewed ) even to be cut off from his people , to be put to death , &c. If it oblige ad poenam , it did first oblige ad obedientiam : For no Law obligeth ad poenam , but for disobedience , which presupposeth an obligation to obedience . 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their Children into Gods Covenant and Church , then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do : But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it ; Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major . There is no duty but what is made by some Law or Precept as its proper efficient cause or foundation : Ergo , if it be a duty , there was certainly some Law or Precept that made it such . Among men we say , that a benefit obligeth to gratitude , though there were no Law : But the meaning is , if there were no humane law , and that is because the Law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankful . If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it , there could be no duty . 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will , ergo , no duty but what is made such by a Law or Precept . For a Precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty . 2. Where there is no Law there is no transgression , Rom. 4.15 . ergo , where there is no law there is no duty ; for these are contraries : it is a duty not to transgress the Law , and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us . There is no apparent ground of exception , but in case of Covenants . Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent ? I answer , 1. He may oblige himself to an act , which he must perform , or else prove unfaithful and dishonest : but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty : ergo , when God makes a Covenant with man , he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity , but not of duty . 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise , doth occasion an obligation to duty from God , because God hath obliged men to keep their promises . 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own Ruler , so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty , ( that is duty to himself , though the act be for the benefit of another ; ) but then he may as fitly be said to make a Law to himself , or command himself : so that still the duty ( such as it is ) hath an answerable command . So that I may well conclude , that there is a law , because there is a duty . For nothing but a Law could cause that duty , nor make that omission of it a sin . Where there is no law , sin is not imputed , Rom. 5.13 . But the omission of entring Infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ; ergo , there was a law commanding it . 2. If it was a duty to dedicate Infants to God , or enter them into Covenant with him , then either by Gods will , or without it : certainly not without it . If by Gods will , then either by his will revealed , or unrevealed . His unrevealed will cannot oblige ; for there wants promulgation , which is necessary to obligation : And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will , unless remotely , as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed . If it be Gods revealed will that must thus oblige , then there was some sign by which it was revealed . And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty , then there was a law , for this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law , ( which is the principal part , ) so that you may as well say , that you are a reasonable creature , but not a man , as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will , but yet not by a Law or Precept . 3. We shall anon produce the Law or Precept , and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing . In the mean time I must confess , I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of its own evidence to shame the gain-sayer . And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly , by perswading them that there were duties without Precepts or Laws , and benefits without donations , covenants or promise confirming them , then despair of nothing for the time to come : You may perswade them that there is a Son without a Father , or any relation without its foundation , or effect without its cause , and never doubt but the same men will believe you , while you have the same interest in them , and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits . Mr. T. would first perswade the Reader that I mean nothing but Circumcision , — Reply . Long ago I told you that , 1. The Females were not circumcised , 2. Nor the Males for forty years in the wilderness : And yet were all Church-members by being Gods Covenanted people . And so was Israel before Circumcision . His terms of [ the hissing of a Goose , and the snarling of a Cur ] and other such , I account lighter than the least of his injuries to the truth . SECT . XXVII . R. B. THE fifth Question requireth me to lay down this assertion , that [ there is no Law or Precept of God which doth not oblige to duty ; and no actual promise or donation , which doth not confer the benefit . ] This I aver on occasion of your last Letter , where in contradiction to the former , you confess [ the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham , Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai , and Deut. 29. and a precept of Circumcision , and precepts of God by Moses , of calling the people , and requiring them to enter into Covenant , Exod. 19. Deut. 29. ] Yet you [ do not conceive that the Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the Covenants , or the precepts forenamed . ] If so , then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Church-membership , or precept concerning their entrance into that state ; or else you imagine that such promises were made , but did not actually confer the benefit , and such precepts were made , but did not actually oblige . Your words are so ambiguous in this , that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way . For when you say [ there is no such particular promise concerning Infants visible Church-membership , or precept , &c. besides Circumcision , as in my Book of Baptism I assert , ] who knows whether that exception of [ Circumcision ] be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision ? or if not , what sense it hath ? and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert ? and before the sense of your one syllable [ such ] is discerned by trying it by a whole volume , I doubt you will make what you list of it . However if you should mean , that such precepts there are as have for their subject [ the avouching God to be their God , the entring into Covenant Circumcision ] of Infants , but not their Church-membership ; then , 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before ; 2. And more shall do anon ; 3. And it 's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative . But if you mean that Church-membership of Infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts , and yet that Infants were not made or confirmed thereby ; it is the contrary that I am asserting , and I have no further need to prove , than by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self . For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised ( according to its tenor and terms , ) is like a cause that hath no effect , a Father that did never generate , and it is all one as to say , a gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant , seeing the name is denied , when the thing named and defined is granted . So a Precept or Law to enter Infants solemnly into Church-membership , which yet obligeth none so to enter them , is as gross a contradiction as to say , the Sun hath not heat or light , and yet is truly a Sun. Mr. T. here confesseth , 2. That the Jews were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God , but by their promise to God : Gods call of them made them his Church , and their promise to God with other acts made them visibly so — Reply . Reader , is not all here unsaid again by this concession ? Unless he will say that this Call , and Covenant , and Promise made them all a visible Church , and yet none of these , but their birth and place made them members ? As if any thing made the Whole Church which made none of the Parts as such . SECT . XXVIII . R. B. I Come next to the sixth Question , Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact , which without the causation of any promise or precept , did make the Israelites Infants Church-members ▪ This you affirm ( if you would be understood ; ) whether this your ground of Infants Church-membership or mine be righter , I hope will be no hard matter for another man ( of common capacity ) to discern . By a [ transeunt fact ] thus set as contradistinct to a law , precept or promise , either you mean the act of legislation and promise making , or some other meerly physical act . If the former , it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business : For you should not put things in competition excluding the one , where they both must necessarily concur , the one standing in a subordination to the other . Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way than by a transeunt fact ? Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will. And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact . If it be by voice , is not that transeunt ? If by writing , is not the act transeunt ? If by creation it self , the act is transeunt though the effect be permanent . And certainly if legislation or promising be your transeunt fact , you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law ( or promise ) it being the making of such a law . And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject , but by the law so made : nor doth the making of a promise , grant or covenant , confer right to the benefit which is the subject of it , any otherwise than as it is the making of that grant which shall so confer it . As the making of a knife doth not cut , but the knife made : and so of other instruments . So that if the law oblige not , or the grant confer not , certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it . I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense , without charging you with too great absurdity . As if you should say , It is not the will of the testator , i. e. his testament , that entitleth the legatary to the legacy , but it is the transeunt fact of the testator in making that will : or it is not the Soveraigns commission that authorizeth a Judge , souldier , &c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission . It is not the sign that signifieth , but the transeunt fact of making that sign . Were not this a contemptible arguing ? To charge you with this , were to make you tantum non unreasonable . And yet I know not what to say to you , that is , how to understand you . For if you mean a meer physical transeunt fact , which is no such legislation or promise-making , then it is far more absurd than the former . For if it be not a sign of Gods will obliging to duty , or conferring benefit , then can it not so oblige to duty , nor confer benefits . It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty , nor any other transeunt fact but promise , or other donation , that can convey right to a benefit , or oblige the promiser . A moral or civil effect must be produced by a moral or civil action , and not by a meer physical action ; which is unfit to produce such an alien effect , and can go no higher than its own kind . What sense therefore I should put on your words , without making them appear unreasonable , even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse , I cannot tell . For to say , it is not a law but legislation , is all one as to say , it is not the fundamentum , but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation , or from which it doth result . And to say it is an alien physical act , which hath no such thing as right for its subject or terminus , is to confound physicks and morals , and to speak the grossest absurdities ; as to say that the transeunt fact of eating , drinking , going , building , &c. do adopt such an one to be your heir . I must needs think therefore , till you have better cleared your self , that you have here quit your self as ill , and forsaken and delivered up your Cause , as palpably as ever I knew man do , without an express confession that it is naught . When men must be taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that Infants Church-membership needed no revocation , forsooth [ because their Church-membership was not caused by a law , precept , promise or covenant , but by a transeunt fact ] than which as you leave it , the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream . But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this , must prove it . Which I shall expect , when you can prove that you can generate a man by spiting or blowing your nose , or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperors . Mr. T. Here Mr. T. is at the old transeunt fact again : Let the Reader make his best of it : I account it not worth the reciting ; nor his title of Canine Scoptical Rhetorick regardable . SECT . XXIX , to XXXIX . R. B. IN consideration of the seventh Question , I shall consider the nature and effect of the transeunt fact which you here describe . And first of the reason of that name . You say that you call it [ 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 be for the future . ] And do you think this the common sense of the word ? or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand ? I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts , and yet not eternal . We use to contradistinguish transeunt acts from immanent , and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum . But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent . But use your sense as long as we understand it . If it be only [ past ] actions which you call [ transeunt ] it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing , was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years ; and so did not ( by your own doctrine ) make any Church-members till the end of those years . But , Sir , the Question is not , whether it were a transeunt fact that laid the foundation by legislation or promise-making ; but whether the effect were transeunt , or the act as it is in patiente : Whether the law were transeunt which was made by a transeunt fact ? and whether the moral action of that law were permanent or transeunt ? it being most certainly such a moral act that must produce a title , or constitute a duty . Gods writing the ten Commandements in stone was a fact soon past , but the law was not soon past , nor the moral act of that law , viz. obligation . There are verbal laws , that have no real permanent sign : and yet the law may be permanent , and the obligation permanent , because the sign may have a permanency in esse cognito , and so the signifying vertue may remain by the help of memory , though the word did vanish in the speaking . When you come to point out this transeunt fact individually , you say [ it is Gods taking the whole people of the Jews for his people , ] which you term [ fact ] as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it . ] 1. I did not well understand before that [ a fact ] did so vastly differ from an [ Act , ] as to contain the acts ( rather than the facts ) of many generations . This is a long fact according to your measure , even from Abrahams call out of Ur : but how long it seems you are not well agreed with your self . For in the first part of your Letter you enumerate to the other acts that compose this fact [ the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai , giving them laws , setling their Priesthood , Tabernacle , Army , Government , Inheritance : ] But before you end , you change your mind , and say [ the Church-membership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call , and was compleated when they were brought out of Aegypt to God , Exod. 19.4 . ] But sure that was long before the setling their inheritance . Your fact according to your last account was about 437. years in doing ; but according to your first opinion , it was about 470. years long . If it were one individual fact of about 470. years long that made Infants Church-members , then they could not be Church-members till that fact was past , For the effect is not before the cause , or causality of the efficient ; the relation cannot be before the fundamentum be laid : and it seems this long fact was the laying of the fundamentum : But the consequent is certainly false ; for Infants were Church-members before the end or compleating of your long fact : For they were Church-members ( you 'l grant ) when Ishmael and Isaac were circumcised . Ergo , it was not this long fact that made them Church-members . If you mean that it was not the whole , but some part of this long fact that actually made Infants Church-members , then you would have assigned that part , when that was the thing desired , and which you pretended exactly to perform ; or at least you would not have told us it comprehended all these acts . And if each particular act did make Infants Church-members , or lay a sufficient ground of it , then it seems that it was done before the institution of Circumcision . For Gods calling Abraham out of Ur was before it . So that the Children born in his house must be Church-members upon that ; and a sufficient ground laid for his own to have been such , if he had then had a natural issue : And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Church-member many years before Circumcision . If this be your meaning , I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of Infants Church-membership before Abrahams days , if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur. If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any Infants Church-members , then it must be any one ; for you no more assign it to one of them than to another , ( only say [ chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt : ] But surely some of these acts particularly cannot do it , as the leading to Padan Aram , the removal to Canaan , to Aegypt , placing , preserving there , setling their Army , &c. Did any one of these make Infants to become Church-members ? Nay , suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members , ( and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the institution of Circumcision , ) yet could not your Doctrine hold good : For some of these acts are of an alien nature , and no more apt to cause infant Church-membership , than a Bull to generate a Bird. What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of Infants Church-membership ? None , I think ; at least if it be such an Army as ours : For surely the setling of ours caused no such thing , as you well know . What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram , or removal to Aegypt , to make Infants Church-members ? Nay , how strange is it , that the removing of Church-members , and such as had been Infant Church-members , as Ishmael , Keturahs children , Esau , must cause Infant Church-membership ? Sure it was no cause of their own . Keturahs children were Church-members in infancy : I enquire of you by what act they were made such ? You say [ by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people ] whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part . Very good . It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews , is a taking of the removed to be of that people : or else it is not only the taking that people , but also the removal from that people that maketh Church-members , even the removed as well as the taken , both which are alike absurd . And I pray you tell me yet a little better , how an act can make a man a Church-member that was one long before that was done ? You cannot here say , that it was before in esse morali , and had a moral causation . How then could your chiefest act , the bringing out of Aegypt , make those Infants Church-members that were born in Aegypt , and were Church-members before ? Or how could it be any part of the cause ? Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Church-member when he was in the basket on the waters ? And when you answer this , you may do well to go a little further , and tell me , how such an act concurreth to make him an Infant Church-member that was dead an hundred or two hundred years before that act was done . For example , how did the setling of the Israelites Army , or Inheritance , or the Covenant on Mount Sinai , make Ishmael , or Esau , or Isaac , or Jacob Church-members ? I desire you also to tell me by the next , what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430. years at least together , so as to make them one fact ? And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years only ? And whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact , and assign it to this office ? You say that you call this fact [ transeunt ] because it's [ past , ] ( and so till it 's [ past ] it seems Isaac and Jacob that were dead before , are no Chruch-members ; ] I would then fain know whether it be this same transeunt fact , or some other , that makes Infants Church-members five hundred years after it is past ? If it be this same , then how comes a meer transeunt fact to work effectually so many hundred years after it is past ? unless it made a Law or Covenant which doth the deed ? If it be a new transeunt fact that must make Infants Church-members after the compleating of this ( the setling their inheritances ; ) then I pray you let me know , whether it ●e one fact exercised on the whole nation in gross , or must it be a fact upon every Infant member individually ? If on the nation , remember to tell us what it was ; and do not only tell us the cause of the membership of former Infants . And seeing it must be such as the membership of every Infant till Christs time at least must be caused by , I pray you remember to make your work square and full , and be sure to assign us no other kind of fact , than what you will prove to have been so frequently repeated in every age , and so fully extensive to every Infant among the Jews , as that it have no gaps , but may make all members that were so in each age . And remember , that it is no law , precept , promise or covenant that you must assign for the cause ; for that is it you are engaged against : but a constant succession of transeunt facts extending to each individual member . O what work have you made your self ? and what a sort of new political Doctrine shall we have from you , when these things are accomplished according to the frame you have begun ? Such as I believe the Sun never saw , nor the wisest Lawyer in England ever read before ? Which makes me the less marvel that so many of your opinion are so much against the Lawyers ; for I dare say they will be but few of them for you , if these be your grounds , or at least not for these your grounds . Reply . To all this I find nothing said by Mr. T. that I think worthy the Readers trouble to reply to : Let him read it and see . His charge of [ foolish exclamations , vanity , &c. ] I pass by . SECT . XXXIX , to XLIV . R. B. BVt all this yet is but a light velitation : The principal thing that I would enquire into , is , what your great comprehensive fact is in the true nature of it , which you call [ Gods taking the whole people of the Jews to be his people . ] Doth the word [ taking ] signifie a meer physical taking or fact ; or a moral , such as among men we call , a civil action ? If it be a meer physical taking , then , 1. It cannot produce a moral effect , such as that in question is . 2. And then it must have an answerable object , which must be individual existent persons . 3. And then you cannot call it one fact , but many thousand : even as many as there were persons taken in to the Jews in above four hundred years . 4. And then what was the physical act which is called Gods taking ? was it such a taking as the Angel used to Lot , that carried him out of Sodom ; or as the Apocryphal Author mentions of Habakkuk , that was taken by the hair of the head , and carried by the Angel into another Country , to bring Daniel a mess of Pottage ? If God must by a physical apprehension take hold of them that he makes Church-members , we shall be at a loss for our proof of their Church-membership . But I cannot imagine that this is your sense . But what is it then ? Is it a physical action though a moral causation of some physical effect ? That it cannot be : For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire after . It necessarily remains therefore that this be a political moral taking that you here speak of . And if so , then the transeunt fact you speak of must needs be a civil or political action . And what that can be , which is no Law , Promise or Covenant in this case , I pray you bestow some more diligence to inform us , and not put us off with the raw name of a transeunt fact opposed to these . Certainly , if it be a civil or legal action , the product or effect of it is jus or debitum , some due or right : And that is either , 1. A dueness of somewhat from us , ( which is either somewhat to be done , or somewhat to be given ; ) 2. Or a dueness of something to us , which is either of good or evil : If good , it is either by contract or donation ( whether by a Testament praemiant Law , or the like : ) if evil , it is either by some poenal Law , or voluntary agreement : Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth ? To be a member of the Church , is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God , and taken by him for his special people . The act which makes each member , is of the same nature with that which makes the society . The relation then essentially containeth , 1. A right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men , Christs headship , and that favour , protection , provision and other blessings , which are due from such a powerful and graciou Soveraign to such Subjects , and from such a Head to his Members : As also a right to my station in the Body , and to the inseparable benefits thereof . 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ , acknowledged and promised actually or virtually , really or reputatively . Now for the first , how can God be related unto me as my God , or Christ as my Saviviour , and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings , by any other way than his own free gift ? This gift must be some signification of his will : For his secret will is not a gift , but a purpose of giving . This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action , which is a signifying of the Donors will ; and can be by no way , but either pure donation , contract , testament , or law . In our case it must needs partake of the nature of all these . It is not from one in any equality , nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us . Being therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Benefactor , it must needs be by pure donation , or it cannot be ours . Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise , or by his word , and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance , and engagement to certain fidelity , gratitude and duty , ●nd so is the stipulator , and we the promisers in the latter part of the action : it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant , though indeed the word [ Covenant ] frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone . As it proceedeth from the death of the testator ( in natural moral-reputative being , ) so it is called a testament . And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor , giving this benefit to the governed , to promote the ends of government , and obliging to duty thereby , so it partaketh of the nature of a law . The commonest Scripture name for this act , is Gods Covenant or Promise , and sometimes his gift ; which all signifie the same thing here . It follows therefore , that either by Gods [ taking Israel to be his people ] you mean some civil political action , as a Covenant , Promise , or the like collation of the benefit , ( and then you assert the thing which you deny , ) or else you know not what you mean , nor can make another know it , without the discovery of the grossest absurdity . And as for the other thing which is contained in Church-membership , the professed duty of man to God , it is most certain , 1. That Gods Law obligeth us to that duty : 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation , and so to re-engage themselves : 3. That this actual consent professed doth therefore double the obligation . And thus by a mutual contract , Covenant or consent ( whereof our part is first required by a law , ) is the relation of Church-membership contracted . Now to lay by and deny all this , and give us the general naked name of [ taking for Gods people , ] is meerly delusory , seeing that [ taking ] means this which you exclude , or it means nothing that is true and reasonable . And therefore tell us better what it means . As for the Texts you cite , Deut. 4.34 . & Levit. 20.24 , 26. 1 King. 8.53 . Isai . 43.1 . In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people , or took them for his own , and founded the relation : but the natural actions whereby he rescued them from the Aegyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use , service , and honour out of that land . But I think sure they were his people , and all their Infants were Church-members before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking . As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel . 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him . 2. By local separation of their bodies from others . It was the first that made them his people , and Church-members , and not the last : the last was only a favourable dealing with them as his beloved . The same I say to the other two Texts . Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member . What if an Aegyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelies , and got with them through the Red Sea , do you think he had been therefore a Church-member ? Suppose God had made no promise or covenant with Abraham or his seed , but only taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan , and thence into Aegypt , and thence into the Wilderness , and thence into Canaan again : Do you think this much had made them Church-members ? Then if the Turks conquer Greece , or the Tartarians conquer China , they are become Church-members , because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least . And I think it is past doubt , that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom , and the Israelites in Aegypt before they were brought out , as truly as after . As to Gen. 12.1 . Acts 7.2 . Nehem. 9.7 . which you also cite , as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began , so I shall further enquire anon , whether they contain any Covenant or promise . So Exod. 19.4 , 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Aegypt , did make Israel a Church , or the Infants or any others , members of it : But only that by fulfilling a former promise in the deliverance of a people formerly his own , he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies . The same I say of Levit. 11.45 . Neh. 1.10 . I will not believe yet , but that you believe your self , that the Israelites and their Infants were as truly Church-members before , as after their deliverance out of Aegypt . And me-thinks the Texts you cite might put it out of doubt . What if God say , Hos . 11.1 . [ When Israel was a child I loved him , and called my Son out of Aegypt . ] Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Aegypt did make him his Son that was none before : or to prove that Israel was Gods Son before he called him out of Aegypt ? If you should maintain the former , I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself , to whom the Evangelist applieth this text ; and so you may prove as fairly , that Christ was none of Gods Son till he was called out of Aegypt , but was made his Son by that call . Certainly the Text termeth him Gods Son that was called , as being so before that call . By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine , and try whether it be a transeunt fact , or a Law and Covenant , that made Infants and all others Church-members : and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours , and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it , and go so far on such a ground , yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable nonsense or absurdities , then let them still follow you in the dark ; for I expect not that reason should recover them . Reply . To all this I find nothing said that needeth any further reply . SECT . XLIV , XLV . R. B. I Come now to the eighth Question , that is to speak to the point which you propounded . You urge me to cite to you the particular Texts that contain this Law , Ordinance , Precept or Covenant . To which I answer thus . 1. There are two sorts of Laws ; one which first make a duty ; the other which suppose it so made , and do only call for obedience , and excite thereto , or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto . If I could shew you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty , or granting the priviledge of Church-membership , it were not the least disparagement to my cause , as long as I can shew you those following Laws which presuppose this . You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of : Where then was Gods will manifested about such things as this , but in tradition and nature ? If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition , and find all the Infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit , then what need he make a new Law about it ? Or why should God promise it as a new thing ? I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days , I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause ( though yet I think there would enough remain . ) 2. There are ( yet higher ) two sorts of laws : the one for the constitution of the Common-wealth it self , the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted . The former are called by some , Fundamental Laws , as laying the frame and form of the Common-wealth , and the quality of the materials , &c. I think indeed , that as constitutive of the form of the Common-wealth , these are scarce properly called Laws ; though as they look forward , obliging to duty , and prohibiting alteration , they may . But if they be not laws , they are somewhat higher , and lay the ground of all laws and obedience , and so are laws eminenter & virtualiter , though not actually and formally : And in our case , as this constitution did subject us to God , making it our duty ever after to obey him ; so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection . And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence , and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant . Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing , it were no diminution of the authority of it , seeing among men Fundamentals are seldom written ; and when they are , it is only as Laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution . As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively Infants should be Church-members , it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing . Yet somewhat we shall attempt . 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-membership by Laws and Covenants concerning it , ever since the time that there was a written word of God : and that is sufficient , if we could fetch it no higher . Having premised this , I come nearer to the Question . The first institution of Infants Church-membership de jure upon supposition of their existence , was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the world , when he became mans Governour , and determined of his subjects , and members of the Common-wealth : Which Republick being sacred , and devoted to Gods worship and service , was truly a Church of which God was head . This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation . That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man , almost all Divines agree : But because it is rather implied than expressed in Moses brief History , some few cavillers do therefore contradict us . But , 1. The threatning of death for sin , seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not . 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it , which to you I need not recite . But whether this promise of life were natural ( as the threatning of death was , ) or only positive and more arbitrary , Divines are not agreed among themselves . Those that say it was free and positive , give this reason , That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature , nor any creature merit of God. Those that think it natural as the threatning was , say , it 's true that God could not be properly obliged , because he is under no Law , no more is he obliged to punish , but only man obliged to suffer if he inflict it : And it 's true that man cannot strictly merit of God. But yet , say they , as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity , so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject , and his works do oblige him ( improperly ) in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word . So that their reasons are these following . 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good , as to do evil to the evil , that is , to reward as to punishment , as his name proclaimed to Moses , Exod. 34. shews . 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity , and principling him with inclinations thereto , and giving him desires , love , and other affections for that blessed end , even the everlasting fruition of God , therefore they say , God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity ; if he sinned not . For else all these inclinations and affection should have been in vain : But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly . Also Gods works would not be harmonical : So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability , so , say they , the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him : So that as he could not let-sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration , no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him . So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessarily be punished for evil , or rewarded for good , that is , he might have made him not a man ; yet having so made him , it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty . 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from its natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity . And if the immortality may be so proved from its nature , then also its felicity in case of righteousness . I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines , but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express . 1. It is most certain , whether the reward or promise be natural or positive , that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to , or in part and the way to more . And it is most certain , that man was made holy , devoted to God , and fit for his service , and that in this estate according to the Law of his creation , he was to increase and multiply : It is most certain therefore , that according to the first law of nature , Infants should have been Church-members . 2. But if their opinion hold , that make the reward grounded on the law of nature , and not on a meer positive law , ( and you see the reasons are not contemptible , ) then the argument would be yet more advantagious . 3. But however it be of the title to glory or eternity , it is most certain , that according to the very law of nature Infants were to have been Church-members if man had stood . The first Text therefore that I cite for Infants Church-membership , as expressing its original de jure , is Gen. 1.26 , 27 , 28. [ So God created man in his own Image — And God blessed them , and God said unto them , Be fruitful , and multiply , and replenish the earth . ] Here you see by the law of nature Infants were to have been born in Gods Image and in innocency , and so Church-members . And note , that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind , is , that they propagate Children in their own estate , to be as the Parents were , even in Gods Image . Mr. T. 1. If this prove their Church-membership , it proves not their visible Church-membership . Reply . Mark Reader , that Gods Law and blessing for the propagation of Adams seed in his Image , would not have made them when born to be visible Church-members , though members ? What not so notorious a Law , and Covenant , and Benediction ? No wonder if all Christians Infants must be shut out , if Innocent Adams must have been shut out ? He adds , [ 2. If it prove a Law or Ordinance , yet not su●h a Law or Ordinance as is in question ; which is not a Law or Ordinance de jure , but de eventu , that so it shall be — they being to be actually visible Church-members before admission according to Mr. B's dictates . ] Reply . Alas , poor Readers , that must be thus wearied ! I know nothing that this Law or Covenant giveth but a Right to real benefits that must have answerable causes : I know no Right given but it is eventually given , nor received but it 's eventually received . Admission is an ambiguous word : My dictates as he calls them , are 1. That Gods Law obligeth persons to devote themselves and their Infants to God , by consenting to his Covenant for themselves and them : 2. And to do this if they have opportunity in the solemn Baptismal Covenanting Ordinance : 3. And in his Covenant or Law of Grace he promiseth to accept them , and signifieth his consent to the mutual Covenant : which is antecedently to their consent , but a conditional consent or Covenant , but consequently a●tual . 4. That accordingly natural interest only is not the Reason why a Believers Child is a Church-member , meerly because he is his : BE God having given him power and obligation also to dispose of his own Child for the ends of his Creation and Redemption , he is a Church-member initially upon heart-consent ; and by Investiture upon Sacramental consent : which I think you mean by Admission . 3. Saith Mr. T. If it did prove such a Law or Ordinance , yet it proves it not such a promise and precept as Mr. B. asserteth . Reply . Must such dealing as this go for an answer ? What 's the difference ? Mr. T. addeth , 4. If it did , yet it only proveth it of the Church by nature , — Reply . You are hard put to it . I do by this first instance shew you where and when the Ordinance , Law or Grant of Infant Church-membership was first made . And I leave it to any impartial Christian whether I prove it not certain , that God in Nature making man in his own Image with an [ Increase and Multiply ] signifie not that Infants should have been Holy to him , if Adam had not sinned : and so have been members of the Innocent Church or Kingdom of God. Alas , many go so much further , as to assert as truth , that had Adam stood ( nay but in that one temptation ; yea say some , had he but once loved God ) all his posterity had not been only born Holy , but confirmed as the Angels : I cannot prove that : but I can prove that they had been born holy had not Adam sinned , and so had been visible members . And if so that God did found Infant membership in Nature , let awakened reason think , whether Parents yet have not as much interest in children , and children in Parents , and then whether God have ever reverst this natural order ? Yea whether he hath not all along confirmed it ? It seemeth out of doubt to me . I know that Parents and Children now are corrupt : but withal upon the promise of a Redeemer , [ an universal conditional pardon and gift of life in a Covenant of Grace took place ] Let them deny it that can , and dare . And it intimateth no change of Gods will as to Infants conjunct interest with their Parents . He saith that [ the Church by Grace is only by Election and Calling , not birth . ] I would desire him if he can , to tell me , whether both Cain and Abel were not visible Church-members in Adams family ? And whether none but the Elect are visible members ? And whether God call not them that are visible members to that state ? He saith [ If this Law be in force all are born without sin . ] Reply . The Covenant of Innocency is not in force ; but yet I may tell you what it was while it was in force ; and that Infants visible Church-membership was founded in Nature and that Law at first : And therefore though our Innocency be lost , Parents are Parents still ; And if God change not his order therein , are as capable of consenting to Grace for their Children , as they were of being innocent for them . SECT . XLVI . R. B. THe next Institution of Infants Church-membership , was at the first proclamation of grace to fallen man , or in the first promise of redemption to sinners , in Gen. 3.15 . [ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman , and between thy seed and her seed : it shall bruise thy head , and thou shalt bruise his heel . ] I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that Infants should be Church-members : And to this end , let us first consider what the words expresly contain , and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them . It being a known rule , that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars , nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals , where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them , I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise . 1. That the Devil having plaied the enemy to mankind , and brought them into this sin and misery , God would not leave them remediless , nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he might ha●e done : But in grace or undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him , in which they that conquered should bruise his head . 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ , the principal seed , is promised to be our General , whose perfect nature should contain , and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan , and who should make a perfect conquest over him . 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed , and so as conceived of her , and born by her , and so as an Infant first , before he comes to ripeness of age . So that here an Infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army , and Head of the Church . This is most evident : By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth , and the Infant state , and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church , which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation . For the first promise is of an Infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church , and growing up to maturity , to do the works of a Head. Had God excluded the Infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an Infant . Where note , 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church ; and in things which he was capable of , he did that first in his own body , which he would after do in theirs . 2. That the Head is a Member , even the principal Member , one of the two parts which constitute the whole . As the pars imperans and pars subdita do constitute each Common-wealth . So that if an Infant must be a member eminently so called , then Infants are not excluded from membership , but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature . If an Infant may be Soveraign , no doubt he may be a Subject . If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church , then no doubt but Infants may be Disciples . If you still harp on the old string , and say , They are no Disciples that learn not ; you may as well say , He is no Prophet that teacheth not . And if you will openly deny Christ in Infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church , I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion , as soon as I know you own it . The promise then of an Infant Head , doth declare Gods mind that he will have Infants members , because the head is the principal member . Mr. T. The thing to be proved is a Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed , Reply . The thing I am to do , is to shew you when and how God instituted Infants Church state ; And that he never had a Church on earth that excluded them : And particularly to shew you that they are included in the first edition of the Covenant of Grace made to Adam , which is perfected in a second edition , but not repealed . This I think I have done . Mr. T. addeth that It will not hold from Christs Headship in Infancy , &c. 1. It is not declared in Scripture , and so a meer phan●y : 2. Then an Infant in the womb should be a visible member , because then Christ was Head of the Church : 3. Then an old man should not be a member ; for Christ was not an old man. Reply . 1. Irenaeus thought it would hold who giveth this reason of it : And I leave the Reader to consider whether the words cited prove it not . Sure I am , it greatly satisfieth my judgement , that God hereby declared his will to include Infants in his Church visibly . For the Head is a Member , even the noblest : Therefore one Infant is confessed by you to be a visible member of the Church : And if one , it will be incumbent on you to prove the rest uncapable or excluded . When I read that Christ came not into the world at the statute that Adam did , but chose to be an Infant , and to be persecuted in Infancy , and to have Infants murdered for his sake first , and to invite and use them as he did , it is not the rowling over of your wearisom dry denials and confident absurdities , that will perswade me that Christ shutteth out all Infants . And I am sure that the Instance confuteth your common exceptions against Infants ; As that they are not Disciples because they learn not , which yet they may be in the same sense as Christ was their Master in infancy when he Taught not : And that their Infancy did not incapacitate them to be in Covenant with God , to be Christians , to be Church-members , &c. Christ shewed , in that in Infancy he bore all the Counter-relations , and was in the Covenant of God as Mediator : and that ( as far as we can judge ) only by a virtual and not actual consent ( in his Infancy and humane nature ) to the Covenant of mediation . Mr. T. saith , [ Then an Infant in the womb may be a Church-member ] — Reply . Yes , in the same sense as Christ in the womb was the Churches head : not by the solemn Investiture of Baptism , but by Consent : For believing Parents do dedicate their children to God intentionally when they are in the womb : But a man would think that you your self should acknowledge that this dedication and so the visibility of membership , hath its gradations to perfection : Are not your proselytes visible members in one degree , when they openly profess Christianity ( as Constantine did ) and in a further degree when baptised ? The interest of your opinion puts frivolous reasons into your mind which a child might see through . Mr. T. addeth , [ Then an old man should not be a member . ] — Reply . Could you think now that you did not cheat your poor Reader , if partiality had not shut one of your eyes ? It will follow , from the affirmative , that such a state of life which Christ undertook is lawful , such words which he spoke , such deeds which he did are lawful , because he did them ( being not proper to the Mediator : ) But will it thence follow from the negative , that no calling , no thoughts , no words , no deeds are lawful which Christ used not ? A single man that hath no Wife or Children may be proved capable of Church-membership , because Christ that was such was the chief Church-member , that is , the head : But will it follow that a married man therefore may be none ? Christs example will prove that a child of God may seem forsaken , may be crucified as a Malefactor : but not that no other are Gods children . Mr. T. I deny not that Christ in infancy was head of the Church , nor that he was the Prophet of the Church in Infancy , understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation , nor that he in some respect , to wit , of Rule and protection , was the head of the visible Church , even of that part which is not elect : yet I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body , in the Scripture acceptions which is by his spirit , he is the head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect . Reply . 1. And will not the Reader be satisfied with these concessions ? Mark Reader , that he granteth that Christ an Infant was the Churches head , and thus far as he mentioneth of the Church visible , and that he was the Prophet of the Church , because he was so habitually and by designation : Why , even so it is that we say an Infant may be a Member , a Disciple , a Christian habitually and by designation , ( though I would use a fitter word here than habitually : ) If this much be a reason for the denomination in one , why not in the other ? Yield Sir , or be not angry with Mr. Gataker . 2. And then what brought in your denial of spiritual membership to the non-elect ? Would you have made your Reader believe that it was any thing to the question ? And when will you prove that neither 1 Cor. 12. nor any other Scripture calleth those members that have but such common gifts of the spirit , as tongues , miracles , prophecie , &c. rejected Matth. 7.23 . And that Christ never talkt in John 15. of branches in him not bearing fruit , and some cut off from him and withered . I am sure it was a whole Church visible that had carnal contentious wranglers against the Apostles in it , and men that were drunk at the Lords supper , &c. of whom Paul saith 1 Cor. 12.15 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 26 , 27. that they were the Body of Christ and members in particular , and common gifts are mentioned as their Character . — Mr. T. That the humane birth and infant state is sanctified ( by Christs ) is not true : for then it would be holy to all , — Reply . I deny your consequence . There are several causes concur to the same sanctification : Christs Birth and Infancy are but a remote preparatory cause , of powerful sanctification , which is ever to individual persons ; as all things are pure to the pure , and when they are capable subjects , by natural existence and Parents consent , then from all the causes together results the holiness of that state : As Christs death and merits sanctifie us , but not immediately nor alone . But Divines use to take this word [ sanctifying ] in an initial preparatory sense , as it signifieth the making of such a thing or state fit for holy use : As Temples and Utensils are said to be sanctified , when designed to be used holily ( before the use . ) But must they therefore be so used by all ? No , but by the Priests and Worshippers ? So they use to say , that Death and the Grave are sanctified by Christ : How ? Not to all , or any of the ungodly : But the curse is taken off , and they are hallowed for the holy advantage of the faithful . So is it as to his Birth and Infancy . Mr. T. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech [ Had God excluded the Infant state from the visible Church , he would not have made the Head first an Infant ] For this doth suppose this the only end or chief end — and more in Gods eye than the saving of sinners — Reply . I prove that gross falshood to be true , thus : That state or age which God visibly included and actually made the chief visible Church-member in , he did not exclude from the visible Church : But the Infant state God visibly included , and actually made the chief visible Church-member in ▪ Therefore the Infant state God did not exclude from the visible Church . The reason of the Major is because to include and exclude are contraries . The Minor he confesseth . If he say that it may be included and excluded in several persons , I answer , I here spoke but of the State or Age of Infancy as such , to prove that qua talis an Infant is not excluded : For if qua talis , then it will hold ad omnes universally , and then Christ had been excluded : And therefore the Age is not excluded as such , if included in one : For it must be a total exclusion : And therefore if he will prove our Infants excluded , it must not be qua tales as Infants , but for some other reason , ( when he c●n find it ) and so the Age or state is not excluded . 2. But what man else could have gathered , that then this must be the only or chief end , and more in Gods eye than the saving of a sinner ? Is there any more included in the assertion than barely that [ God would not have made an Infant the chief member if he would have excluded Infants as Infants ? ] Who c●uld hence have found out that God hath various degrees of intention ? And we must dispute which is chiefly in his eye : and that this was only or chiefly in his eye more than saving sinners . Let them dispute what is chiefly in Gods eye , that can better distinguish of those volitions which are all but his simple essence ; but let them do it on better reasons than these . Mr. T. I deny that Christ as man in infancy was the Prophet of his Church visibly , and in actu exercito : Let Mr. ● . when he will assault , there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshoods . Reply . That one little [ and ] was cunningly put in to bring you off ; by taking visibility and exercise conjunctly : But are your followers so critical as to discern the knack ? 1. Neither do we say that Infants are learners in actu exercito ; and so what is this to the matter ? 2. But Reader I can prove to thee if thou be impartial , though not to Mr. T. that it is neither vile nor false that Christ in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church visibly , ( though not in actu exercito : ) That which was declared by Angels from Heaven , and by revelation to Mary , Zacchary , Anna , Symeon , and by Prophecie by them to others , is to be called visible : But that Christ was the Head and Prophet of the Church , ( habitually and by designation as Mr. T. calls it ) was thus declared — Ergo — Mr. T. And for his inference , If an Infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church , then no doubt but Infants may be Disciples , I grant both : and yet deny that Christ was visibly , audibly , in actu exercito , in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church , or that any Infants are actually Disciples visibly , till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith : Nor am I a●hamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not , that they are no Disciples that learn not . Reply . Reader thou art not the person that I write for , if thou perceive not here his cause notoriously given up , and yet a noise of words used shamefully to hide what he is forced to confess . 1. He granteth both that an Infant may be ( and was ) the chief Prophet of the Church , and Infants may be Disciples . 2. This is it that we dispute for which he expresly granteth . 3. He denyeth the said Relation titles as in actu exercito , and so do we ; that is , that Christ then prophesied , and Infants learn or believe . 4. He talks confidently in this denial , as if he would have fools believe that this were the difference , and we held the contrary . 5. But he is fain to juggle in the word [ audibly ] joyned to [ visibly ] for a paltry subterfuge , that if we prove Christ visibly the Prophet , we may not prove him audibly so . 6. Yet it is such a [ visibility ] as [ maketh one known ] that he had in hand ; and before denied the [ visibility : ] as here ; but if you prove that Christ was visibly the Prophet , he can say [ but not audibly ] If you prove that he was audibly so , in that Angels and Prophets audibly declared it , he can say [ but not in actu exercito ] and by his own Prophesying ; which none denieth . 7. And yet in the end he expresly without distinction denieth him to be any Prophet that Prophesieth not , or them any Disciples that learn not , when he had in terminis granted the contrary before , and must needs therefore grant and deny by distinction . In summ , our cause is expresly granted us ( and expresly denied ) we plead for no other kind of membership to Infants , but such as Christ had , nor for any other sort of visibility , than the visibility of their being the seed of persons consenting to Gods Covenant , and Gods expressed will in his word , that they should be offered to him by consenting Parents , and that he will accept them , and did conditionally first consent . SECT . XLVII , XLVIII . R. B. AS the war is here proclaimed , and the General or chief Commander constituted , so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman , or humane race , against the whole seed of the Serpent that then was , or the Diabolical nature . This is plain both in the Text , and in the experience of the fulfilling of it . As in the instrumental serpent , it is the whole serpentine nature , that hath an enmity to the humane nature , and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature ; they being venemous to us , and we abhorring them as venemous , and as such as our lives are in danger of : so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature . Vide Muscul . Calvin . Luther . in locum . All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil , as of a serpent , they apprehend him to be their enemy , they abhor the very name and remembrance of him : If they do but dream of him , it terrifieth them , they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition . If they know any temptation to be from him , so far they dislike it and abhor it , though for the thing presented they may cherish it . This is not special saving grace , but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace , and to our more effectual resisting of temptations , and entertaining the help that is offered us against them , when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature : we now look on him as having the power of death , as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary . And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity and amity with him , as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome , that proveth not that it was not naturally there , but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural . 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankind against the diabolical nature , so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity , malignity and works . Vide Paraeum in locum . God will put an enmity by his laws ( both natural and positive ) making it the duty of mankind to take Satan for their enemy ; to resist , and use him as an enemy , and fight against him and abhor his works , and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him , to take his colours , and to be of his Army : And this being spoken of the common world of mankind , and not only of the elect ( for it is not they only that are obliged to this hostility and warfare ) belongeth to each one according to their capacities : and therefore Infants being at the Parents dispose , it is they that are to list them in this Army against the enemy of mankind , of which more anon . 6. A third and higher enmity is yet here comprehended , and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity , pravity and works , which may be called [ natural ] as it is the bent or byas of our new nature . This God giveth only to his chosen , and not to all . And it containeth not only their consent to list themselves in his army against Satan , but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness , and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his works universally , to the death , with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers . Here take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity . As God is one in three , and in his entity hath unity , verity and goodness , and in his blessed nature hath posse , scire , velle , power , wisdom and love , so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures , as absolute proprietary , as soveraign ruler , and as most gracious benefactor : As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical : As soveraign Ruler , he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty , that we should be listed in his army , profess open hostility against Satan , and 〈◊〉 against him to the death . As Benefactor , he giveth special grace to do this , to his chosen . As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all : As he is Rector of all , but not by the same Laws ( as to positives ) so he obligeth all to this hostility , but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel : As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list , and makes a difference . If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to be put in all , and therefore the same persons in which it is put . I answer , 1. There is no proof of either . A general command or promise to a community , may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community , though that difference be not expressed : For the nature of the subject may prove it . And , 2. Experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant , proves the difference before mentioned . And it is well known , 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters . 2. And that the mysterie of grace was to be opened by degrees , and so but darkly at the first , that it is no wonder if we find the whole summ of the Gospel here coucht up in so narrow a room , and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes . 7. That we may certainly know that this promise speaks not only of the enmity that Christ himself should have to Satan , and doth not engage a General without an army , God doth here expresly mention the woman her self , saying [ I will put enmity between thee and the woman ] so that as she stood in a threefold respect ; she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity . 1. As she is the root of humane nature , from whence all mankind 〈…〉 , she is possest with the natural enmity 〈…〉 diabolical nature , and this to be naturally conveyed or propagated . 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world , or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern , and her self with her husband ( who no doubt was also included in the promise ) were the whole then existent race of mankind , so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation , which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity , being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her Infant progeny in the Redeemers army , against the proclaimed enemy , and to teach her posterity to do the like : For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down . 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God , she received the habitual enmity of sanctification : And this is not in her power to propagate , though she may use some means that are appointed thereto , and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means , I will not now stand to discuss . 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natural enmity against the Devil himself that are the Church of Christ : For this is but a common preparative which is in all : Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of Satan : But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against Satan ( by the obliged person ) are visible members : and all that are by sanctification at an hearty enmity ( habitual or actual ) with the Kingdom of Satan , are members of the Church called mystical or invisible . This I put as granted . 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation , and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdom for Satan and his Kingdom , are become themselves the seed of the Serpent . And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan , yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ . This much I suppose as out of controversie . But whether also the first original corrupted nature it self ( before any sin against recovering grace ) did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdom of the Redeemer ? Or whether the sins of later Parents may propagate this as an additional corruption in our nature , I will not now stand to discuss . Only as to our present business , it is certain that the general natural enmity to Satan , may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause . And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature , and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation , yea , and as listed in Christs army may have many of its priviledges ; yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ , they may be under a greater curse . 10. As it is certain , that it is not only Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise , and is here called [ the seed of the woman , ] ( as is before proved , and may be more , and is commonly granted ; ) so it is to be noted , that those others in whom this enmity is put , are called here [ the seed of the woman , ] and not the seed of Christ ( though the chief of them are his seed . ) And so though the promise is made to none but the womans seed , and no exception put in against Infants , or any age of all her seed : Till you can prove that Infants are none of her seed , we must take this fundamental promise to extend to Infants , and that very plainly , without using any violence with the Text. 11. Some learned men do use no contemptible arguments to prove further , That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed ( I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward , Mr. Bedford , &c. ) that is , that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman ( as is explained ) so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer . 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude , that the impiety of Parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more than by original sin they were hindred , and therefore their faith may further them . Of which though much may be said , I shall say no more , because I will not stand on things so much questioned . M. T. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentive — Reply . They that need a Reply to any thing here said , shall have none from me . SECT . XLIX . R.B. I Come next to prove from other parts of Scripture , That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to be interpreted as including Infants . 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened , do expresly comprehend Infants as to be Church-members , then is this fundamental promise so to be understood ( or then doth this also comprehend them . ) But the antecedent is certain , therefore so is the consequent . The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the Father of the faithful , which comprehended Infants for Church-members : The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending Infants , was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened . Which is proved thus : Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer , therefore they were the same . For there is but one such . If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant , that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers . That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied , that I know of . That the promise to Abraham was the same , is evident from Rom. 4.10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest , that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal , was the Covenant of free justification by faith ; Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had , yet being uncircumcised , that he might be the Father of believers , &c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law , but through the righteousness of faith . Now it is certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed , did comprehend Infants . The consequence of the major then is evident , that the same promise expressed more concisely , is to be expounded by the same expressed more fully : And it is acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees . Mr. T. That the fundamental Promise of Grace , Gen. 3.15 . doth include Infants , was never denied by me , and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it . Reply . If we be really of one mind , it is pitty we should make men think we differ : Mark this concession Reader , [ The fundamental promise of Grace doth include Infants . ] The Grace of that promise is our Vnion Relative to Christ and his Church , and the benefits internal and external belonging to Christs members . Do you believe that our union with the visible Church as such , and participation in its priviledges , is none of that Grace ? Mr. T. This I deny , that it includes all Infants , or all Infants of Believers , and that any Infant is made a visible Church-member by that promise as the next cause or sole efficient . ] Reply . It will come to something anon : 1. That all Infants are made Church-members by it , did any of us ever affirm ? Though if the Parents dissent had not hindred , and their consent had made them and their Infants capable Recipients , it would have been all . 2. The Covenant or Law of Grace giveth visible Church-membership conditionally to all that hear it . Deny this , and you know not what you do . I first ask you , Doth not the Law of Grace ( or Promise ) give both mystical and visible Church-membership to all that hear it that are at age and have the use of Reason ? ( I speak not of membership in a particular Church which some may want opportunity to enjoy , but in the universal . ) Deny this , and you deny Christs Gospel . Doth he not say , He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved : whoever believeth shall not perish — whoever will , let him take the water of life freely : He that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out : Go into the high-ways and hedges , and compel them to come in , &c. If Gods Law , Covenant , Promise or Donation ( call it which you had rather ) do contain a conditional Gift of Christ , pardon and life to all the adult , ( which it beseemeth none but an Infidel to deny , ) ask thy Conscience , Reader , whether this blessed Covenant give no such conditional right to any Infant in the world ? Are they all excluded ? And why ? Are they worse than their Parents ? If it give any Right to Infants conditionally as it doth to Parents , it must be on a condition to be performed by the Parents , or such as are so far entrusted . Mr. T.'s talking of [ the next cause , and the sole efficient ] seem to me the words of a man that knew not what to say , but was resolved that he would not yield : Sir , do you grant that the promise maketh Infants visible Church-members , as any cause , next or remote , sole or cooperating ? ] If not , why cheat you your simple followers by this talk ? If you do , we are agreed , and why contend you ? If Logical notions are our difference , say so ; I think as it is a Beneficial Relation , the Parents consent and dedication , and the childs being Theirs , are the dispositio materiae , called by some causae Receptivae vel dispositivae : and that Gods donation is the sole efficient in which his donative word ( call it what you will ) is the Instrument : This is plain Logick . But you that profess that your Church-membership is it self no benefit ( and so owe God no thanks for it , and yet make such a stir about it ) cannot indeed hold , that Gods love or mercy , or Christs merits , or the Covenant or Promise are givers of it to young or old : For they give nothing but benefits . Be not angry to have your absurdities opened , but before you die be sober and reform them . He addeth [ I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical Grace , though mixt , and that it did include Infants , and that they were Church-members , to wit , of the invisible Church of the Elect — And that Abrahams Infants in his house were visible Church-members , but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical , but by the transeunt fact : and if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant , it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises , rather than Evangelical . Reply . About 23 and 24 years of age I was my self in doubt of Infant Baptism : But had I read such a Writer as this against it , I think he would have easily resolved me for it . 1. The Covenant to Abrahams family was a Covenant of Evangelical Grace , he saith , ( And surely so was that to Adam , and Noe before . ) And it included Infants , but only as Elect in the Church invisible . But the conditional Promise or Covenant is confest to include the Non-elect at age : And what ! None of them in Infancy ? Reader , How can this be called a Covenant , for God only to say [ I will save all such Infants as I elect ] and yet offer Salvation to none of them in the world on any condition , nor give a title to any person that can be known by themselves or others ? They confound the Decree of God with his Covenant . If God had made no other Law , Promise or Covenant , with the adult , but [ I will save whom I will save ] who would have taken this for a Law or Covenant ? And what right or hope doth this give to Christians for their Children more than Pagans ? And , Reader , if God have given no condition or character antecedent , as a differencing reason or qualification of those that he will save from those that he will not , but only told us that he will save whom he list , this maketh Infants no subjects of his Kingdom , under no Law , and so liable to no judgement , nor to stand in judgement with the rest of the world , but only to be used as beasts or stones , by Divine natural motion as he will. And then , how can you say that any Infants shall be damned , or not saved ? Or that it shall be one of a million at least that shall not ? For if there be no Law that giveth Right to Pardon and Salvation to any one Infant in the world , and yet many are saved , it will follow , 1. That God is ( as the prophane say ) better than his word , and will save many to whom he never gave right to it by promise . 2. And will not the ungodly put in for the like hopes ? If besides those that Gods Laws condemn or justifie , God will save many in a neutral state , why may he not , saith the ungodly , save me also ? for Infants once deserved punishment by original sin : And if God pardon them without any reason in themselves , he may do so by me . 3. Or at least he may save all the Infants in the world for ought you know , that die in Infancy . And do all the promises to the seed of the faithful , in the second Commandment , and Exod. 34.7 . and many another Text , mean no such thing as they speak , as if to be the seed of the faithful were no condition , but only [ I will save my elect ? ] And why might not this Covenant [ I will save my Elect ] be made with Cain , or Cham , or Judas , as well as with Abraham ? 2. He saith , Abrahams Infants were visible Church-members , but not by the Covenant barely as Evangelical . ] Reply . What a bare put off is that , of a man that must say something ? Is it at all by the Covenant as Evangelical ? If yea , we have our desire . If not , what meaneth [ barely ] but the nakedness of your ill cause ? 3. Then cometh next [ And if in any respect by virtue of the Covenant ( which it seemeth he yet knoweth not after all this talk , or will not know ) it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises , rather than Evangelical . ] Reply . See , Reader , some more of the mysterie : Infants were Church-members in Abrahams house , but Church-membership signified but houshold and civil promises : Do you now perceive what the Jews Infant Church-membership was ? The Socinians perhaps will say the like of the Jews Covenant to the adult . But we may yet mistake him , For [ rather ] is not a negative : It is [ Rather than Evangelical ] which is but a preference , not a denial . O for plain honesty in things divine ! SECT . L. R. B. 2. THat the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted , I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it . Concerning which I do make this challenge to you ( with modesty and submission , ) to prove if you can , that there was ever one Church-member that had Infants born to him while he was in that estate , from the beginning of the world to this day , whose Infants also were not Church-members ? Except only the Anabaptists , who refuse or deny the mercy , and so refuse to dedicate their Infants in Baptism unto Christ . And whether their Infants be Church-members , I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time . I do again urge you to it , that you may not forget it ; to prove to me , that ever there was one Infant of a Church-member in the world , since the creation to this day , that was not a Church-member , ( except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it . ) Reply . Mr. T. 's Answer is a refusing to answer , save a cross challenge ( oft answered ) and the instance of Timothy : To which I say , that if Timothy 's Father being a Greek countermanded his communion with the Jews , he could not be a member of their policie or particular Church . ( Though if he only delayed as Moses did to circumcise his Son , that Son might be a member as the children in the wilderness were . ) But his Mothers right alone might make him a person in Covenant with God as a visible member of the Church-universal . SECT . LI. R. B. BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture , I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self , and see what that saith to the point in hand . And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating Infants to God in Christ , and next of Gods acceptance of them , and entertaining them into that estate . And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of nature it self ( at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them ; ) which I prove thus . 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due : But Infants are Gods own due ; Ergo , the law of Nature bindeth Parents to give them up to God. By [ giving ] here I mean not an alienation of propriety , to make that to be Gods that was not so before ; but an acknowledgement of his right , with a free resignation and dedication of the Infant to God , as his own ; for his use and service , when he is capable thereof . If you say , Infants being not capable of doing service , should not be devoted to it till they can do it ; I answer , they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty , and also of the relation which followeth that obligation , together with the honour of a Church-member ( as the child of a Noble man is of his Honours and title to his Inheritance ) and many other mercies of the Covenant . And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediator or head of the Church in his Infancy , yet for all that he must be head of the Church then , and not ( according to this arguing ) stay till he were capable of doing those works . And so is it with his members . Reply . Here is so little said that needs but this remarke , that Mr. T. knoweth not how to deny the duty of dedication handsomly , which being Accepted of God is to Church-membership as private Marriage to publick , where publication is wanting : But he denieth that Parents may dedicate them by Baptism : But if they may and must do it privately by heart consent , it will follow that they must do it publickly in the instituted way . As for my bold attempt in proving so much by the Law of Nature , if he cannot confute it , let him not strive and sin against nature . SECT . LII . R. B. 2. THe law of nature bindeth all Parents to do their best to secure Gods right , and their Childrens good , and to prevent their sin and misery : But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication , doth tend to secure Gods right , and their Childrens good , and to prevent their sin and misery : For they are under a double obligation , which they may be minded of betimes , and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty , and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God. Mr. T. Really Infant Baptism is a disadvantage , 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is , and so are kept in presumption , &c. 2. They are kept from the true baptism , &c. Reply . This nearly concerneth our cause : I once inclined to these thoughts my self : But I am satisfied , 1. That Infant Covenanting and Baptism is no hindrance in Nature or Reason from personal serious Covenanting with God at age . We tell our Children and all the adult , that their Infant Covenanting by Parents , will serve them but till they have Reason and Will of their own to choose for themselves : And that without as serious a faith and consent of their own then as if they had never been baptized , they cannot be saved : What hurt then as to this doth their Infant interest do them ? 2. Yea doubtless it is a great help : For , 1. To be in the way of Gods Ordinance and Benediction is much . 2. And ( knowing you deny that ) I add , to be conscious of an early engagement , may do much to awe the minds of Children ; yea and to cause them to love that Christ which hath received them , and that Society to which they belong . 3. If Children till Baptized have any thoughts of dying , according to you , they must have little hopes of mercy : And God accounteth not the spirit of bondage best , no not for Children . They cannot well be educated in the Love of God , who must believe that they are damned if they die , and that God hath not given them any promise of life . 4. Experience of many Moors ( servants ) among us and in our Plantations , ( besides ancient history ) assureth us , that delaying Baptism till age tendeth to make people delay repentance , and think I am but as I was , and if I sin longer all will be pardoned at baptism , and I must after live strictlier , and therefore ( as Constantine and many more ) they will be baptized Christians when there is no remedy . 5. And experience assureth us that it were the way to work out Christianity and restore Infidelity in any Nation : For had not Christ early possession , and were not Nations discipled and baptized , Christians were like to be almost as thin as Puritans now : and the multitude being Infidels from a cross interest ( such as divisions cause ) would be ready on all occasions ( as they did in Japan and Monicongo ) to root them out . I take this to be a very concerning consideration , whether in reason Infant Baptism be like to do more good or harm . The not calling men to serious Covenanting at age doth unspeakable harm : To have a few good words about Confirmation in the Liturgie , and such as Doct. Hammonds writings of it , will not save ignorant ungodly souls , nor the souls of the Pastors that betray them : I have said my thoughts of this long ago in a Treatise of Confirmation . But I must profess that it seemeth to me , that if Christ had left it to our wills , it is much liker to tend to the good of souls , and the propagating Christianity , and the strength of the Church , for to have both the obligation and comfort of our Infant Covenant and Church state , and as serious a Covenanting also at age , when we pass into the Church state of the Adult , than to be without the former , and left to the expectation of adult baptism alone . SECT . LIII , to LVIII . R. B. THe law of nature bindeth Parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society , if they have but leave so to do : But here Parents have leave to enter them into the Church , which is the most honourable and profitable society . Ergo . That they have leave , is proved , 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely , ( the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely ; ) and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such participation of benefits : As all laws of men in doubtful cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the most favourable sense . So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own : When they speak of duty to God , they must be interpreted in the strictest sense : When they speak of benefits to man , they must be interpreted in the most favourable sense that they will bear . 2. It is the more evident , that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave , because God hath put the principle of self-preservation , and desiring our own welfare , and the welfare of our Children so deeply in humane nature , that he can no more lay it by than he can cease to be a reasonable creature . And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness , where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him . We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness , but what is in the law of nature it self , and to use this where God forbiddeth not , if good be then to be found , cannot be unlawful . 3. It is evident from what is said before ( and elsewhere ) that it is more than a silent leave of Infants Church-membership that God hath vouchsafed us . For in the forementioned fundamental promise , explained more fully in after times , God signified his will that so it should be . It cannot be denied , but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise , and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded , there be no excluding term . Vpon so much encouragement and hope then it is the duty of Parents by the law of nature to enter their Infants into the Covenant , and into that society that partake of these hopes , and to list them into the Army of Christ . 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature , to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children . But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army , is an allowed or offered benefit to them , Ergo , &c. For the Major , these principles in the law of nature do contain it . 1. That the Infant is not sui juris , but is at his Parents dispose in all things that are for his good . That the Parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering , that is certainly to their own good : and so may enter them into Covenants accordingly : And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the child . 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a Parent to refuse to do such a thing , when it is to the great benefit of his own child . As if a Prince would offer Honours , and Lordships , and Immunities to him and his heirs : if he will not accept this for his heirs , but only for himself , it is unnatural . Yea , if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits . For the Minor , that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to Infants is manifested already , and more shall be . And this leads me up to the second point , which I propounded to consider of ; whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that Infants should have the benefit of being Church-members , supposing it first known by supernatural revelation , that Parents are of that society , and how general the promise is , and how gracious God is . And 1. It is certain to us by nature that Infants are capable of this benefit , if God deny it not , but will give it them as well as the aged . 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Common-wealths in the world ( perfecte sed imperfecta membra ) being secured from violence by the laws , and capable of honours and right to inheritances , and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties , if they survive . And this shews that they are also capable of being Church-members , and that nature revealeth to us , that the Infants case much followeth the case of the Parents , especially in benefits . 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth , so far as I can learn , to repute their Infants in the same Religious society with themselves , as well as in the same civil society . 4. Vnder the Covenant of works ( commonly so called ) or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature ; the Infants should have been in the Church , and a people holy to God , if the Parents had so continued themselves . And consider , 1. That holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now , and that in the establishing of the way of propagation , God was no more obliged to order it so , that the children of righteous Parents should have been born with all the perfections of their Parents and enjoyed the same priviledges , than he was obliged in making the Covenant of Grace to grant that Infants should be of the same society with their Parents , and have the immunities of that society . 2. We have no reason when the design of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace , to think that love and grace are so much less under the Gospel to the members of Christ , than under the Law to the members or seed of Adam , as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous Parents , and now they shall all be turned out of the society , whereof the Parents were members . 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature , proclaiming even pardoning mercy to slow thence , Exod. 34. and in the second Commandment . 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their Parents sakes : as many Texts of Scripture shew ( and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes , that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or natural guilt . ) So much of that . Reply . Mr. T. saith nothing to all , that I think the Reader needeth a reply to . SECT . LVIII . R. B. YEt before I cite any more particular Texts , I will add this one argument from the tenour of the Covenant of grace , as expressed in many Texts of Scripture . According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace , God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people , that are ( in a natural or law sense ) willing to be his people , and to take him for their God. But the Infants of believing Parents are thus willing , Ergo. The Major is unquestionable . The Minor is proved from the very law of nature before expressed . Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sense , Ergo , the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sense , and that is of the Parents , who have the full dispose of them , and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them ( for their good ) till they come to use of reason themselves . The Parents therefore by the light and law of nature choosing the better part for their children , and offering and devoting them to God , by the obligation of his own natural law , he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel , refuse those that are so offered . And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth , he will in no wise cast out , Joh. .. And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him , that are offered by those that have the power to do it , though they cannot offer themselves . For legally this act is taken for their own . Thus I have shewed you some of the fundamental title that Infants of Believers have to Church-membership , and our obligation to dedicate them to God. Reply . Mr. T. saith [ that some acts of the Parents are legally taken for the childs is not denied . ] But here he denieth it , and I leave his denial with my copious proof in my Treatise of Infant-baptism to the Readers . SECT . LIX . R. B. YOu must now in reason expect , that infants Church-membership being thus established , partly in the law of nature , and partly in the fundamental promise , what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment , but confirmations and intimations of what was before done , rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it , than being such first establishing laws or promises themselves . And from hence I may well add this further argument . If there be certain proof in Scripture of Infants Church-membership , but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it , but all speaking of it as no new thing , then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence , to assign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest . But the former is true , ergo , the later . You confess that Infants were Church-members once . You only conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conceit hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed , when Abraham first believed : But when it began to belong to Infants of Believers in general , no Text except this before cited doth mention . Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Church-membership of Infants , but only an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing . Reply . To this Mr. T. still affirmeth that Infants Church-membership was proper to the Hebrews only . Reader , though they had their peculiarities , is it credible that the Infants of that one small country only should be so differently dealt with by God , from all the world else , even Henoch 's , Noe 's , Sem 's and all from Adam to the end of the world , that these Infants only should be Church-members and no others ? what unlikely things ( yea against evidence ) can some believe ? SECT . LX , LXI , LXII . R. B. NOW for the Texts that further intimate such a foregoing establishment . 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living : For it is to be noted what Bishop Usher saith , Annal. vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum ( post semen promissum ) mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum , Gen. 3.20 . quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam , sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius , Messiam promissum : quomodo & post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita . 1 Pet. 3.6 . Gal. 4.31 . ] He put this name on her after the promise , because she was to be the mother of all the living , not only that live the life of nature , but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed . So that as she was the root of our nature , we are her natural seed ; and as she was a believer , and we the seed of her a believer , so is she the mother of a holy seed , and we that are her seed are holy , as a people visibly dedicated to God. 2. When Cain was born , his mother called him [ possession ] because she had obtained a man of the Lord , that is , saith Ainsworth , [ with his favour , and of his good will , ] and so a Son of promise , and of the Church . And therefore it is to be noted , that when Cain had sinned by killing his brother , God did curse him , and cast him out of his presence , Gen. 4.14 , 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God , saith Ainsworth , [ that is , from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father , who being a Prophet , had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary , to come into Gods presence or before him , 1 Chron. 16.29 . is explained in Psal . 96.8 . to be the coming into his Courts . ] Very many learned men give the same exposition of it . Now if Cain were now excommunicate , then was he before of the Church : nay it is certain by his sacrificing , and other proof , however this Text be interpreted : But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable that he entred into the Church at any other time , as we give of his entrance at his nativity . When Eve bare Seth , she so named him as a Son of mercy in faith , as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room , faithful as Abel , and the father of our Lord after the flesh , as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25 . And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an Infant member of the visible Church ? I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed , or saith , that Seth was without the Church in his infancy , doth speak in my ears so improbably , and so unlike the Scripture , that I am very confident I shall never believe him . Mr. T. 's Answer to all , is a denial : saith he , [ There is no intimation that Seth was an Infant member of the visible Church ; from which Ishmael was not excluded : In which though I place not Seth , I do not thereby excommunicate him , or say that he was without the Church in his Infancy . Reply . But you say He was without the visible Church : ( or else within and without are consistent with you . ) And whether Ishmael was within , and Seth , and Henoch , and Sem without , I will no more dispute with you . SECT . LXIII , to LXX . R. B. NOte also , that as God had thus cast out Cain , and supplied Abels room by Seth , and had given each of them posterity ; so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous , and putting two titles on these two distinct generations , calling some the sons of God , and others the daughters of men , Gen. 6.2 . Supposing that you reject the old conceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women , the current ordinary exposition I think will stand , that these were the progeny of Seth , and other members of the Church , who are called the Sons of God ; and that it was the progeny of Cain , and other wicked ones , that are called the daughters of men . Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked , but the children of men , as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth . And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly godly ones , but sons of God , as being the seed of the Saints not cast out , but members of the Church , or the sons of those who were devoted to God , and so devoted to him themselves : a separated generation belonging to God as his visible Church . Where note , that these that are called the sons of God , even the line of Seth and other godly Parents , were yet so wicked that God repented that he made them , and destroyed them in the flood , sparing only Noah and his family . So that it was not their own godliness , that made them called the sons of God , but their relation , Church state and visible separation from open unchurched Idolaters . Compare this phrase with the like , Deut. 14.1 . 2 Cor. 6.18 . In the former it is said [ ye are the children of the Lord your God , ye shall not cut your selves , &c. ] where the whole people , Infants and all , are called Gods children , as being a people separated to him from the Idolatrous world ; and so in the next vers . called a holy people unto God , peculiar to him , &c. And 2 Cor. 6.8 . Come out from among them , and be ye separate , &c. and I will be a father to you , and you shall be my sons and daughters , saith the Lord Almighty . ] So that Gods sons and daughters are that society that are separated from Idolaters unto the worship of God as the visible Church is . And then it appears that the generation of the righteous , even from the womb , were enumerated to the rest , in that they are not mentioned as a people called out here and there , and initiated at age ( there is no mention of any such thing : ) but as a stock or generation opposed to the daughters of men , or of the unchurched , who were such from their infancy as all will grant . For it was not the same men that were the Parents of those here called the daughters of men and the sons of God ( though some of the later might be excommunicate when they fell : ) But it plainly intimates , that it was another sort of men that these were the daughters of , than those that were Parents to the sons of God. So Ainsworth in loc . [ The sons of God , i. e. the men of the Church of God , for to such Moses saith , Deut. 14.1 , &c. 1 John 3.1 . Daughters of men , meaning of Cains posterity that were out of Gods Church , Gen. 4.14 . ] So our Annotations , and many more . An intimation of this priviledge , and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise , appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous , both before and after the flood , which I will not stand on particularly . And when all the world had so defiled themselves , that God was resolved to cut them off ; he spared Noah and his family or sons . Though Cham was to be cursed , yet was he of the Church which worshipped the true God , and spared as a son of Noah , and one of that society . And if God so far spared him then for his Fathers sake as to house him in the Ark ( the type of the Church ) he sure took him to be of the same society in his infancy , and then bare him the same favour on the same account . As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue , as he did Adam , with an [ increase and multiply ] and made a Covenant with him and his seed after him . Which Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should be drowned no more , and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed , and even with the beasts of the field , yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed , as one whom God would shew a more special respect to , as he had done in his deliverance , and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better . For though the word [ Covenant ] be the same to man and beast , yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word , as applied to each . And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an [ increase and multiply ] if all his Infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church , and so left as common or unclean . This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdom of the Devil . If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children , must now be so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church , it were a strange change in God , and a strange blessing on Noah ! And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed , if all that seed must be so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain . Moreover it is certain that Noah did prophetically , or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Shem and Japhet . And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God , shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him . And it is plain that it is not only the persons , but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended . It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet , that is , to their posterity . And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem , as well as the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the Infant seed of them out of Gods Church . And well they may , if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God , Saith Ainsworth in loc . [ under this Shem also himself receiveth a blessing : for blessed is the people , whose God Jehovah is , Psal . 144.15 . and eternal life is implied herein , for God hath pre-prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God , Heb. 11.16 . and Shem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour . ] Moreover in Gen. 9.27 . in Japhets blessing there is much , though in few words , to this purpose intimated . First , note that the Jewish Church is called [ the tents of Shem. ] From whence it appeareth , that the Church priviledges of that people begun not with or from Abraham , but were before : And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham , and after all the additional promises to Abraham , the Jewish Church is still denominated [ the tents of Shem : ] now they were the tents of Shem before Abrahams days . And therefore it is clear , that it being the same Church , must be supposed to have the same sort of members or materials : and therefore Infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after . That Church which was Shems tents had Infant Church-members ( for the Jews Church is so called , into which Japhet was to pass : ) But the Church both before and after Abraham was Shems tents , Ergo. Yet further let it here be noted , that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass . I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applyeth the word [ dwell ] to Japhet than to God , and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles , as many Expositors have cleared at large . And so , as Ainsworth saith , the sense is that Japhet shall be [ united with the Churches of the Jews , the posterity of Shem , which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joynt-heirs , and of the same body , and joynt-partakers of Gods promise in Christ , the stop of the partition-wall being broken down , &c. Ephes . 3.6 . & 2.14 , 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church , when Shems posterity should be cut off , &c. ] vid. ult . Now if it be Shems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in , then as Shems Infants were Church-members , so must Japhets , and not all his Infant seed be cast or left out . So that here is a promise of Infant Church-membership unto the Gentiles in these words . Reply . To all this the summ of Mr. T. 's answers are , 1. A denial of the senses given of some Texts , which I leave to the Readers examination , being resolved not to tire him with a tedious Reply . 2. He grants that their persons were blessed , God their God , and their seed in the Church : As if Gods open Covenant and promise made them not visible members but invisible . SECT . LXX , to LXXIX . R. B. WE come next to the Promise made to Abraham , which I shall say the less to , because you confess it . But again note , that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people , and so of Infants to be members of the Church , to be at Abrahams call from Ur ; 1. There is no one word of that in the Text. 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham , yea , and from Haran , and lived with him : were not Lot and his Infants Church-members then ? 3. The chief note I intend is this , that there is no more said then to prove Infants Church-members , than what we have shewed was said long before , and is said after of the Gentiles Infants , no nor so much . If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur , yea , or the promise made to him in Haran , Gen. 12.2 , 3. will prove Infants Church-membership , then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews . And here I note further , that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision , you plainly yield that Infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision , and begun not with it , but before . And indeed I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism . Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision , but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith . Ishmael was a member before , and so was Isaac , and the Infants born in Abrahams house . Whether there were any promise or precept of this ( but a meer transeunt fact ) let the Text last mentioned , and the following bear witness . Gen. 12.2 , 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed , and , Gen. 17.7 , 9 , 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee — and I will be their God. And God said to Abraham , Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou and thy seed after thee in their generations . This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you , &c. to vers . 15. In all this let these things be noted , 1. That here is an express promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after him . 2. That it is not only de praesenti , but for the future , called an everlasting Covenant . 3. That this promise or Covenant doth manifestly imply and include Infants Church-membership ( as you confess . ) 4. That yet here is not the least word that intimates an institution of it de novo , but rather the contrary plainly intimated . The promises before Gen. 17. are mainly about the multiplication of Abrahams seed . What is that to Church — membership ? ( except what intimates the promised seed , of which anon . ) Hagar hath a promise also of the multiplication of Ishmaels seed . And the very precept of Circumcision is only one part of the Infant members , viz. the males , and therefore it cannot be foundation of their Church-membership , which leaves out half the members . 5. Note that the promise that God will be their God , doth expresly contain the Church-membership of the seed . 6. Note that this is more than a transeunt fact , Ergo , being an everlasting Covenant . Had it been a natural transeunt fact , that had left no permanent title behind it in the obligation of the Covenant , then it had been null and void as soon as spoken : then the word of God is but a bare sound and of no further force . 7. Note that the Apostle ( as is said ) Rom. 4.10 , 11 , 12 , 13. doth fully manifest to us , that this promise was made to Abraham as a believer , and that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had , yet being uncircumcised : and therefore that the chief part of the Covenant of having God for our God , and his taking us as his peculiar people , belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews . 8. And he oft sheweth that the faithful are Abrahams seed , and therefore the chief blessings of the promise belong to all the faithful . But one of the blessings was , that their Infants should be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant , Ergo , the Infants of the faithful who are the heirs of the same promise , must be comprehended in it too . 9. I think it is not to be made light of as to this matter , that in the great promise , Gen. 12.3 . the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth , all the families of the earth shall be blessed , as the Heb. Samar . Arabic . or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised , and so a Gospel blessing ( Ergo , the Syriac . adds and in thy seed , and the Arab. hath by thee . ) And the Apostle fully testifieth that . So that as tribes , kindreds , families , do most certainly comprehend the Infants , and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church , so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ . 10. Note that as Infant Church-membership is here clearly implied in Infant Circumcision , so they are two distinct things ; and as the sign is here commanded de novo , so the thing signified ( I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant ) is commanded with it , though not de novo , as a thing now beginning as the sign did . So that here is in Circumcision not only a command to do the circumcising outward act , but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant , and so withal for the Parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God , and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people . So that here are two distinct duties concurrent . The one external newly instituted , the other internal not newly instituted . And therefore the former may cease , and yet the later stand : and it is no proof that the later ( Covenant engagement of Infants to God ) is ceased , because the sign of Circumcision is ceased ; no more than it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin ; or that women were not Church-members separated , engaged , dedicated to God in Infancy , because they were not circumcised . And no more than you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years . So that here you have a command for entring Infants as Church-members . And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 . & Gen. 17. And when I consider the Parents , breeding and manners of Rebekah , I think it far more probable that she was a Church-member from her Infancy , than that she was entred afterwards at age , or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her . And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants , so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further than to Abrahams natural seed , not only in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth ( of which before ) but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers . For Gen. 22.16 , 17 , 18. it is thus alledged [ because thou hast done this thing , &c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed , because thou hast obeyed my voice . ] And Gen. 26.3 , 4 , 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac , and the same reason assigned , [ because that Abraham obeyed my voice , and kept my charge , my commandments , my statutes and my laws . ] How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing , I am not determining ; but taking the words as I find them in general , I may conclude , that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some way or other ? And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason , yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction , we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common : At least , if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed ( upon the freeness of Gods grace , or the eminency of Abrahams obedience , ) yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found . It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithful and obedient , yea , to prefer that before his own life , and not a son only , it may be hence gathered , that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that account , will bless theirs on the same , with the same blessings in the main ( as to his favour and acceptance of them ) though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of external things . In Exod. 12.48 . there is a law for the circumcising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land , that will keep the passover : which comprehendeth their Church-membership , as is shewed . Reply . To all this neither do I find any new thing calling for any answer , but what the considering Reader can easily make : His repeated sayings , that if [ Admission be by Baptism I must make Parents Ministers to baptize ] a child may well answer . There are more Parties that act in baptism than one : God by his Ministers expresseth his Covenant-Gift and Consent , and delivereth it sealed to the Receiver by the instituted investing symbol : The party receiving expresseth his consent , and this the Parent hath power and trust to do for the child , as you may take a Lease for your Child : Cannot the Parent do this , and so be a Cause of Reception without being a Minister ? SECT . LXXIX , to LXXXVI . R. B. THe promise to the whole people of Israel , Infants and all , that they should be [ a peculiar people , a Kingdom of Priests , and a holy Nation , ] Exod 19.5 , 6. you cannot deny . This is a promise , and not a transeunt fact which made no promise . And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant , that they might have this promise fulfilled to them . Yea , if you had said , that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise , reaching but to the persons then existent , and dying with them , though you had spoken more sense , yet no more truth than when you denied the law and promise , and substituted a transeunt fact . For , 1. It is expresly a promise de futuro to a Nation . 2. Yea , and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel , intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them , as the promise to Abraham was to the faithful who were his uncircumcised seed . However , here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmaon the blessing of Church-membership to Infants with the rest of Israel : For certainly , this peculiarity , and holiness , and priesthood here mentioned , containeth their Church-membership : It is undeniable therefore , that such Church-membership is here granted by Promise or Covenant , not as a thing then beginning , but by way of confirmation of the like former grants . And it is to be noted , that though this promise is made to all Israel , yet not to be fulfilled to any of them , but on condition that they [ obey Gods voice , and keep his Covenant , ] vers . 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing , and therefore so may do now . In Deut. 17.1 , 2. The Infants with the rest are called the children of God , and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God. And Deut. 26.14 , 18. the Covenant is expressed [ Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God , and to walk in his ways , and keep his statutes , and his commandments , and his judgements , and to hearken to his voice . And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people , as he hath promised thee , &c. And that thou maist be an holy people , &c. Is here no promise , when the promise is exprest ? and is here no Covenant , where the mutual Covenant is described ? And I think you grant that Infants are included . So Deut. 28.4 , 9. Where the promise to the nation is , that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandments , they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies ; and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself , as he had sworn unto them . ] Here is not only a Covenant and Promise for the future , but also an oath confirming it , as annexed to the same before . Is this establishing Covenant on Promise but a transeunt fact ? or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised , which was received before by the same means ? And Ezra 9.2 . They are called the holy seed . Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough . It is called a Covenant . All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God , and which he made to them . It was a Covenant , to establish them for a people to himself , and that he may be to them a God , as he had before said and sworn . It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there , whether it be meant only of the successive Israelites ( and then it is not a transeunt Covenant ) or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms ( and then it 's not proper to Israel . ) It is a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites : but as obedient to the Covenant terms , and Covenant breaking would cut them off , vers . 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26. Is not Church-membership contained in , Gods being their God , and taking them for his people thus in Covenant ? Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing ? Is all this then no promise , but a transeunt fact ? Deut. 30.19 . There is a law and promise , choose life , that thou and thy seed may live . This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter , 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it , there would have been no penalty , and then he would not have made it death to withdraw . It is the same Covenant which Josi●h caused the people to enter , 2 Kings 23.2 , 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 , 32. Of Levit. 25.41 , 54 , 55. I have spoken elsewhere , and of some other Texts . Mr. T. — For the sole efficient cause being actually put ( as the Covenant and the Parents believing are , Deut. 29. ) the effect must be in act : but it is not so in the unborn : therefore the Covenant and Parents faith are not the sole efficient — so that though the Covenant give a Right to a blessing , yet it doth not make actually visible Church-members , without some other transeunt fact — Reply . ( The rest let the Reader make his best of . ) We are it seems by this time in a fair way of agreement , and have almost done our work . It seemeth by this time he could find in his heart to grant that the Covenant is an efficient cause , though not the sole efficient : well , we will not stick on that : Gods love and revelation , and Christs merits shall be antecedent chief efficients : And he seemeth now instead of saying still that [ It is only by the Physical transeunt fact ] to be content if we will say , it is not till or without that fact , that is , that men are not members of the Church till they are men . We will not be so sowre as to deny him that much . And indeed is this all at the upshot ? But I will not grant him the logical notion too easily , though we will not quarrel about it . I think a cause materially may long exist before the effect , though it be not formaliter causa till it effect : And I think that Gods conditional Covenant or Promise , is but causa virtualis & aptitudinalis till it effect , and yet may be the sole proximate efficient of our Right afterward : I think the childs being born did not effect his Right to Church Relation , nor doth our Faith now , nor the Parents faith or consent , but only as a condition make men capable Recipients . And I think the effect may begin de novo without any change in the efficient , upon a change in the Recipient : And that the Sun unchanged is the proximate efficient of motion , light and heat , to the next existent wight that received not his influx before it did exist : And the Covenant or Donative Instrument of God which saith [ He that believeth shall be justified ] may effect my Justification when I believe and not before , though my faith effect it not at all , but dispose the recipient . But I deny that the Parents faith being put , all the capacity of the recipient is put , even when he is born : For if it be possible for the Parent to consent for himself and not for his child , and to devote himself and not his child to God , part of the condition of reception is wanting . As far as I perceive , could I but hope to be so happy a disputant , as to convince Mr. T. that Church-membership ( visible ) is any benefit at all it self , or was to the Israelites , he would grant me all that I plead for of the conveyance of it by Covenant . And if I cannot it is a hard case . SECT . LXXXVI . R. B. THe second Commandment , Exod. 20.5 , 6. Deut. 5.9 , 10. I think is a law , and containeth a promise or premiant part , wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the generations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments : of which I have also spoken elsewhere , to which I refer you . I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise , and discovery of Gods resolution , concerning the children of all that love him , whether Jews or Gentiles , to whom this Commandment belongs : nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Church-membership : And that this is fetcht from the very gracious nature of God , I find in his proclaiming his Name to Moses , Exod. 34.6 , 7. Mr. T. If this mercy here imply Church-membership to the Infants of them that love him to a thousand Generations , then it implieth it to all the Infants in the world — But there is nothing to prove that this mercy must be Church-membership , or that it must be to all the children of them that love God , or that it must be to them in Infancy — I incline to conceive this a promise of temporal mercies , chiefly to the Israelites — Reply . 1. That it is not only of temporal mercies , the words [ Love and Hate ] as the qualification of the Parents , seem to prove ; and the joyning the children to the Parents in the retribution : And all the terms seem above such a sense : It is the revenge of a jealous God on Idolaters , and mercy to his Lovers that is spoken of : And the joyning this Command to the first which setleth our relation to God , with the Laws annexed in Deut. for the cutting off whole Cities ( Parents and Children ) that turn from God to Idols , sheweth that it reached to Church-Communion and Life . 2. And that it was not only to the Israelites ( whatever you chiefly mean ) is proved both in that it is in the Decalogue , and the proclaimed name of God , Exod. 34.5 , 6. and exemplified throughout the Scripture and in the Gospel . 2. As to the extent , we can hardly expect that the world should endure a thousand Generations : Therefore it can mean but that God who boundeth the punishment to the third and fourth generation , will set no bounds to the succession of his mercies while our capacity continueth . And whatever the mercies be , the exposition of this continuance concerneth you as much as me . 3. As to the conditions , I doubt not but it supposeth that the child at age imitate the Parents in their Love or Hatred , duty or sin : And that if on Repentance the Parent be forgiven , his sin may not be visited to the third and fourth . And if a child of Godly Parents turn wicked , the right is intercepted . 4. But the Commandment with the foresaid exposition shews , that God meaneth that his Retribu●ion to Parents that Love or Hate him , shall extend to their children as such ; unless they interrupt it at age by their own acts : And if to their children qua tales , then to Infants . And it speaketh such a state of mercy as cannot in reason be conceived to belong to them without , and can mean no less than Gods visible favour , by which the Church is differenced from the world , when Lovers and Haters are distinguished sides . And when God hath Recorded this decreed granted distinguished mercy to the children of the faithful as such in the Tables of stone , sure it is a visible notification , which will make them visible favorites and Church-members as soon as they visibly exist . And the quatenus seemeth to me to prove that it extendeth to all the children of the faithful , because it is to them as such . But it followeth not that it must extend to them all alike , as to equal mercies , nor yet that the sin of Parents after may make no kind of forfeiture . But of this I have said more in my Christian Directory . SECT . LXXXVII , to XCIV . R. B. IN Psal . 102.28 . It is a general promise , the children of thy servants shall continue , and their seed shall be established before thee . It is usual in the Old Testament to express Gods favour by temporal blessings , more than in the Gospel ; but yet still they secure us of his favour . As , I will not fail thee , nor forsake thee , might secure Joshua more than us of temporal successes , and yet not more of Gods never failing favour . There is a stable promise to all Gods people in general that have children , Psal . 103.17 . But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him , and his righteousness unto childrens children . And to be secured by promise of Gods mercy and righteousness is the state of none without the Church . And if they were all to be kept out of the Church , I scarce think that Children would be called an heritage of the Lord , and the fruit of the womb his reward , Psal . 127.3 . nor the man happy that hath his quiver full of them . Nor would the sucking children be called as part of the solemn assembly to the humiliation , Joel 2.16 . 2 Chron. 20.13 . There is a standing promise to all the just , Prov. 20.7 . The just man walketh in his integrity , his children are blessed after him . There is no sort of men without the Church that is pronounced blessed in Scripture . A blessed people are Gods people , and those are the Church separated from the cursed world . One lower blessing will not denominate a man or society , a blessed man or society . If it were a good argument then , Deut. 4.37 . because he loved thy fathers , therefore he chose their seed after them , then it is good still as to favour in general . So Deut. 10.15 . Psal . 69.36 . Prov. 11.21 . The seed of the righteous shall be delivered . In Psal . 37.26 . there is a general promise to , or declaration of the righteous , that his seed is blessed , and then they are Church-members . In Isa . 61.8 , 9. it is promised I think of Gospel times , I will make an everlasting Covenant with them , and their seed shall be known among the Gentiles , and their off-spring among the people : all that see them shall acknowledge them , that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed . And cap. 62.12 . They shall call them the holy people , the redeemed of the Lord : and thou shalt be called , sought out , a city not forsaken . Gospel promises then extend to [ people and cities , ] whereof Infants are a part . Isa . 65.23 . they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord , and their off-spring with them . This is plain , and full , and durable . What is necessary to be said in answer to the common objections , as [ that experience tells us all the seed of the righteous are not blessed ] with the like , I suppose already done in my book of Baptism . All the seed of the righteous are blessed , though not all with that blessing which cannot be lost and cast away by themselves when they come to age . Mr. T.'s Answers all contain the difficulty of discerning the fulfilling of these promises , and so denying that they infer visible Church-membership : and he saith [ That without the Church a person may be pronounced blessed , is apparent from Ishmaels blessing , Gen. 17.20 . when he was excluded the Covenant and cast out . ] Reply . He was excluded the Covenant of peculiarity , but not the common Covenant of Grace made with mankind in Adam and Noe : And the Church was larger than the Israelites Nation . The rest I leave to the Reader . SECT . XCIV , XCV . R. B. IF you say that the word [ seed ] doth not necessarily include Infants . I answer , Infants are part of the seed of the righteous , yea all their seed are first Infants . If therefore God have made general promises as to age and person , who is he that dare limit it , without just proof that indeed God hath limited it ? Doth God say , that the seed of the righteous are not blessed till they come to age ? If he pronounce the seed blessed , they must be blessed , when they are first such a seed : And if any one age might be more included than another , one would think it must be that wherein they are so meerly the seed of such as that they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief . For the seed of the righteous , as such , have a promised blessing : But the seed of the righteous turning themselves to unrighteousness , do turn from that blessing , and become accursed . I suppose I have already been more tedious than you expected : I will therefore add no more of these passages of Scripture , having said that which satisfieth me formerly to the same purpose , and having yet seen nothing that leaves me unsatisfied . And also because one text either containing such a Law or Covenant as you call for , or declaring to us that God did make such a Law or Covenant , is as good as a thousand in point of authority . Mr. T. Mr. B. not holding children in the womb unborn to be visible Church-members , all this may be retorted : They are part of the seed of the righteous . Reply . The whole seed ( in the womb and born ) are taken into this relation to God which implyeth his blessing on them as separated from the wicked , according to their capacity : An Infant in the womb is visibly separated to God , if you denominate visibility from the notoriety or visibility of Gods promise that doth it : But the person is not visible to you , though sensible to the mother . As Christ was the Head in the womb , so far Infants are members ; the Parents then privately devoting them to God : I told you before , the visibility of our state hath several gradations . To quibble thus on all Gods promises to the children of the faithful by questions and exceptions about embryo's , abortives , &c. is vanity . SECT . XCVI , XCVII . R. B. THE next Question that I spould speak to is , whether these Laws , or Covenants , or Promises , are capable of a revocation , or repeal ? and I shall take this for a question that needs no further debate , among men that know what a Law or Promise is . Gods immutability and perfection may make some Laws unrepealable , while the subject remains : but otherwise the thing it self is capable of it . Only where a Promise or Law is but for a limited time , when the time is expired it ceaseth , and the cessation is as to the nulling of it , equal to a revocation or abrogation . I put in this question , lest you should hereafter change your mind and say , that indeed it is a law , or promise , or covenant , by which the right of Church-membership is conferred , and Infants dedicated to God : but it is but a transeunt Law or Covenant . ] Answ . If so , then it is either immediately or presently transeunt , or at a certain limited time only , when it will cease . The former is certainly false and intolerable . For , 1. They are promises and laws for the future , and therefore cease not immediately . 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promises and mutable Law-maker in the world , if his promise and his laws cease as soon as they are made . Nay it makes them to be no laws or promises . 3. It was one standing law and promise that belonged to the Nation of the Jews successively . And God did not make his promise anew to every Infant that was made a Church-member , nor renew his law to every Parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the sign of Circumcision . Were not the uncircumcised Israelites in the Wilderness made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force . And did former Laws oblige to Circumcision till Christ ? Else there were but few members , nor but few that circumcised warrantably , if the promise and precept did extend but to the person that it was first delivered to , and every one else must likewise have a personal promise and precept . The Mother of Christ cannot then be proved to have been a Church-member in Infancy . If it be said that these promises were limited in the making of them , to a certain time when they were to cease , I say when that is proved we shall believe it , which I have not yet seen done . And it falls in with the last question , which is , whether these promises be indeed revoked and ceased , and these laws repealed or ceased . And here it is that I have long expected your solid proof , together with the satisfactory answer to my arguments to the contrary . And so I shall leave this task in your hands . Sure I am that Christ never came to cast out of the Church , but to gather more in : much less to cast out all the Infants , even all of that age in which himself was head of that Church : But to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered , John 11.52 . And therefore he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea , even the National Church that then was , unto himself , as the true head , even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her wings , and they would not . It was not because he would not ( as intending a new frame , where Infants could have no place ) but because they would not , and so cast out themselves and their Infants . Certainly it is the joy of the formerly desolate Gentiles , that they shall have many more children than she that had an Husband , and not fewer , Gal. 4.25 , 26 , 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise , even that promise which extended to the Infants with the Parents . Gal. 4.28 . Mr. T. — I conceived a Promise not in congruous sense repealable : For although a promise be a Law to the Promiser , yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed : 'T is true , the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth ; but that cannot be repealed : that which is done cannot be infectum , not done . Reply . I perceive we must dispute our first principles , as well as our Baptism . Reader , Gods promise in question is not a particular promise to some one person only , but his Recorded Instrument of Donation , or stablished written or continued word , which is the sign of his will : It is the same thing which is called , the Premiant or Donative part of his Law , in one respect , and his Testament in another , and his Donation or Gift in another , and his Covenant as Conditional in another , and his Promise in another . As [ He that believeth shall be saved ] is the Rewarding or Giving part of a Law , and it is a Testament , a Covenant , a Promise , a Gift , all these . Mr. T. cannot see how this promise can be repealed : what , not an universal promising Law , or Covenant or Instrument ? The question is not whether it ever was repealed , but whether it be repealeable , in congruous sense . Why may not the King make a Law that every one that killeth such and such hurtful creatures ( a Fox , &c. ) or that killeth an enemy in war , shall have such a reward ▪ and repeale this Law or Promise when he seeth cause ? I think the first Covenant ceased by mans sin , without repeal . But I cannot say that no promise to the Israelites was repealed , upon their sin ! The non-performance of the condition depriveth the party of the benefit while it is unrepealed : but may not God thereupon repeal the Law or Covenant , and null the very offer to posterity ? Is it not so as to the Jews policie and peculiarity ? What pains is taken in the Epistle to the Hebrews to prove the change of the Covenant as faulty in comparison of that which had better promises ? But if you will call it a meer cessation , all is one as to our question in hand . SECT . XCVIII . R. B. BEfore I end I shall be bold to put two or three Questions to you out of your last Letter . Quest . 1. Whether the circumcised servants of Israel sold away to another nation , and so separated from the Civil state of Israel , did eo nomine cease to be Church-members , though they forsook not God ? And so of the Infants if they were sold in Infancy ? If you affirm it , then prove it . If you deny it , then Infants might be Church-members that were not of the Common-wealth . Mr. T. — None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Common-wealth . Reply . But my Question was , when without forsaking God , they are forcibly separated from the Jewish policy and subjected to others , are they not members of the Church-universal still , though not of the Jews ? SECT . XCIX . R.B. Quest . 2. IF ( as you say ) it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people , were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off , or not , who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem , which came to be a Patriarchal seat . Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jews Church-members in Infancy ? If no , then it was somewhat else than unbelief that broke them off . Mr. T. They were broken off from the Jewish Church , not by unbelief , but by faith in Christ . Reply . This is too short an answer to so great an evidence against you . The Infants of the Christian Jews were the day before their Conversion members of the Jewish Church and of Gods universal Church , of which the Jews were but a part : For as he that is a member of the City is a member of the Kingdom , and a part of a part is a part of the whole , so every member of the Jews Church was a member of Gods universal Church . Now , 1. The very Jews policy totally ceased not till the destruction of Jerusalem at least . 2. But if it had , I ask , was it no mercy to be a member both of the Jews Church and the universal ? If not , the Jews lost nothing by being broken off ? If yea , how did the Christians Children forfeit it ? Was it better to be of no visible Church , than of the universal ? The Jews were broken off by unbelief : you say Christians Infants were put out of that and the whole visible Church by faith , or without unbelief . SECT . C. R. B. Quest . 3. WHether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews , but to bring in Gentiles , breaking down the partition-wall , and making of two one Church , would have such a Linsey Woolsey Church of party colours , or several forms : so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have Infant members , and the Church at Rome should have nonel ? Jews Infants should be members and not Genties ? Mr. T. so answereth as before , and needeth no other Reply . SECT . CI. R. B. Quest . 4. IF unbelief brake them off , will not repentance graff them in ? And so should every repenting believing Jews Infants be Church-members ? Mr. T. Not their Infants — Reply . Then it would be but a part of the people that would be graffed in . SECT . CII . R. B. Quest . 5. WAs not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual , and gathered in a spiritual way ? Mr. T. The invisible was ; the visible Jewish Nation was not . Reply . Not in comparison of the times of maturity : but the visible Jewish frame had the Father of spirits for Soveraign , and commanded spiritual duties , upon promises of spiritual blessings , even life Eternal . SECT . CIII . R. B. Quest . 6. HOw prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame , that Infants were members ? Or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age ? Mr. T. It was a more imperfect state in that and other regards . Reply . I called for some proof that the Infant-membership was any part of the Church-imperfection : If it be not a blemish , why must it be done away : what , was the Church the worse for Infants Rights ? SECT . CIV . R. B. Quest . 7. IN what regard is the new frame bettered by casting out Infants which were in the old ? Mr. T. The Church is more spiri●ual — Reply . What , doth Infants Relation detract from its spirituality ? The adult have souls and bodies , and so have Infants ? The adult come in by the same kind of consent for themselves , as they make for their Infants ? The adult blemish the Church with more carnal sins than Infants do ? The Kingdom would be never the more spiritual nor excellent , if all Infants were disfranchised : Nature teacheth all Kingdoms on earth to take them for members , though but Infant-members . SECT . CV . R. B. Quest . 8. WHether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith ( in the Articles necessary to salvation ) repentance and obedience ? And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old ; save only that a more full and express revelation of Christ , requireth a more full express faith ? Mr. T. I know not what profession each Jew did make , or was to make . Reply . I would you had been as cautelous and modest throughout . It is evident , that they were to profess consent to Gods Covenant , which those that denied , Asa would put to death . SECT . CVI. R. B. YOu may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the seven last Questions , and towards the middle that occasioneth the first . As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Church-members , I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it . Reply . Here Mr. T. chides me for wronging him by length ; and being afraid the Reader will do so too I make haste . SECT . CVII , CVIII . R. B. ANd now I have gone thus far with you , in an enquiry into the truth , I entreat you be not too much offended with me , if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self . Quest . 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of , to maintain that [ Infants were visible Church-members not by any promise or precept , but by a transeunt fact , and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so , but only a fact of God , which is a transeunt thing not repealable ? ] But either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant-making , or not : if you do , what a saying is it that Infants were made Church-members not by Covenant , but by a Covenant-making , not by a Law , but by a Law-making ? If not , either you must say , that God makes duty without any law , and gives right to the benefit without any promise , or Covenant-grant as the cause ; or else , that it is no benefit to have right to Church-membership , and no duty to enter into that relation , and to accept of that benefit , and to be devoted to God. Which ever of these ways you chuse ( and one you must chuse , or change your opinion ) hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous , or else more unbeseeming a Divine , from a learned sober man of that profession ? Pardon the high charge : Let the indifferent judge . Reply . To this I find no answer worth the reciting . SECT . CIX . R. B. Quest . 2. IS it not a great disgrace to all your followers , that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism , and be so confident that they are righter and wiser than others , and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these , which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a Law , Promise , or Covenant is ? And do you not prove , that it is not because of the evidence of truth , but by your meer interest or confident words , these people are changed and held to your opinion ? Do they know what [ a transeunt fact is , that without Law or Covenant makes Church-members ? ] I say , do they know this ? which no man that ever breathed till now , nor ever man will know again ? And do you not proclaim them men of distempered consciences , that dare go on in such a Schism , on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion , and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain ? ] Reply . I have nothing to say here , but Mr. T. seems very angry at this . SECT . CX . R. B. Quest . 3. IS it not a desperate undertaking , and dare you adventure on it , to justifie all the world before Christs incarnation except the Jews , from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God , to take him to be their God , and themselves to be his people ? Yea , to justifie all Jews against this charge , that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church ? And doth not he that saith there is no law , say there is no transgression ? Mr. T. He doth — Let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his Lie of Infant Church-membership and Baptism by such Lies as these , and fear the ate of Liers . Reply . Charge not your self , and I will not : I propose it to your consideration , whether the persons that solemnly take God for their God according to Gods Covenant , and are by his visible word of Covenant , taken by God for his people , be not visible members of the Church universal ? And whether he that saith , There is no Law of God binding to do thus for his children , do not infer that they sin not by not doing it ? SECT . CXI . R. B. Quest . 4. DAre you yet justifie also at the Bar of God , all the world since Christs incarnation from the guilt of sin , in not dedicating their children to Christ , and entring them into his Covenant as members of his Church ? Dare you maintain that all the world is sinless in this respect ? Mr. T. I dare justifie the Non-baptizing them — Reply . Here you make a modest stop . It seemeth you dare not justifie men for not solemnly dedicating them in Covenant to God , and visibly engaging them to Christ as members visible of his Church . SECT . CXII . R. B. Quest . 5. HAve you well considered of the fruit of your ways apparent in England and Ireland at this day ? Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not ? And is it any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times , when you can venture , even in these times when the persons are living in our company , to tell me that [ you think I am mis-informed that they are Anabaptists , and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized , ] when of many that we know , and multitudes that we hear of , there are so few that were not before against Infant Baptism , and the Seekers first such , and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down Infant Baptism ; and it is one of the questions that they send to me , and others to answer , [ how we can prove it by express Scripture without consequences , or else confess our selves false Prophets . Reply . The answer to this I leave to the Readers judgement . SECT . CXIII . R. B. Quest . 6. HAve you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred , of the perverting of so many souls , opening them such a gap to schism , contempt of the Ministry , and Apostasie , destroying a hopeful reformation that cost so dear : or weakning our hands in the work , and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn , enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes , and list themselves among you , as the hopeful party to befriend their cause , hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane , and setling them again on their dregs , when many once began to shake ! O what a Church might we have had , and were likely to have had ? Had it not been for the Separatists and you ? And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these ? Have these things toucht your heart ? Reply . Mr. T. here is angry , and I wonder not ; one stone he snatcheth up from Doct. Owens Appendix , and one from the Scotch Church , and Elders , and the Church at Kederminster , and the Worcestershire Association , which few before him I think have said much against . SECT . CXIV . R. B. Quest . 7. IS [ a transeunt fact , making Infants Church-members without Law , Promise , or Covenant ] a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things , and run such hazards us you have done ? Or is it possible that an humble sober man , and a tender conscience , durst make all this havock , and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done , and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence ? When you should prove to us the revocation of Infants Church-membership , to tell us that they had it only by a transeunt fact ? Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on ? Sir , my conscience witnesseth , that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you , but some compassion on you ( do not scorn it ) and more on your poor followers ; and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled . Reply . Here Mr. T. is angry again , which is the summ . SECT . CXV . R. B. Quest . 8. CAn you prove that ever there was one age , or Church ( particular ) on earth since Ad●m till about 200 years ago , that the Anabaptists rose , wherein Infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church ? If you can do it : Let us hear your proof . Mr. T. I can ; and for proof look back to Sect. 50 , 51. and besides Constantine , Augustine , Naz. Hierom — Reply . I can find no such thing there : what if the four men you name were baptized at age ( the special reasons are told you elsewhere . ) Doth that prove that others were not baptized in Infancy ? Your 52 Sect. I think to examine in the end . SECT . CXVI . R. B. Quest . 9. CAn you bring us proof of any one Infant of true Church-members , that was not rightfully a Church-member himself from the creation till Christs days ? or from the creation till this day ? except the Anabaptists , who reject the benefit ; whose case ( as I said before ) I will not presume to determine ? Mr. T. I can , look back to Sect. 50 , 51 , 52 , 57. — Reply . I have done , and I find no such proof . SECT . CXVII . R. B. Quest . 10. SEeing that Infants have been de facto Church-members from the creation to this day ( as far as any records can lead us ) is it likely that the Lord , and head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church , would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects , as in regard of age be disallowed ? And suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now ? Or is it a reasonable , modest and lawful undertaking , to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church , as to the age of the subjects ? And is it not more modest and safe , to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in Heaven lived in , till the other day , as a few Anabaptists with vile and sinful means , and miserable success , did attempt an alteration ? Mr. T. here denieth the suppositions : I leave the Reader to judge how truly . SECT . CXVIII , CXIX . R. B. SIR , pardon the weakness , and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother ( though not as is meet ) Rich. Baxter . May 14. 1655. Sir , if you have any thing of moment to say , in reply to these , which you have not yet in your writings brought forth , I shall be willing to consider of it : But if you have not , I pray you tel me so in two words , and spare the rest of your pains ( as for me ) and trouble me no more with matters of this nature . For truly I have no sufficient vacancy from greater works . Yea , I am constrained to forbear much greater than these . R. B. After this he tells me , that whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley , in which I refuted by many arguments Infants visible Church-membership , I must be either mutable or hypocritical , if I deny such a Law and Ordinance which I took on me then to refute , and desires a Copy of that Sermon , that he may shew the sad mistakes and vanity of those my arguments . Reply . Reader , to Mr. T.'s anger at these ten Questions I must say , 1. That the dolefulness of the Churches case constrained me in grief of heart to deal plainly with him . 2. But it was in a private letter , extorted by his importunity , and published to the world by himself and not by me ; who confess that this plainness was too great for me to have used to him publickly : But secret admonition disparageth him not to others . It hath now been by himself about nineteen years divulged to the world , and I did not so much as trouble his patience by a word of answer , and little thought ever to do it : But Major Danvers his loud invitation hath drawn me to give them this Farewell . THE Reader must here take notice that I am not here called to prove Infants Church-membership out of the New Testament , but to shew out of the Old that they were visible Church-members before by a Grant or Covenant , which Christ hath not repealed . The rest ( out of the New-Testament ) I have done long ago in my Treatise of Infant Church-membership and Baptism , which Mr. T. is so much displeased at . And indeed I think that the proofs are plain , though many objections may be difficult to be answered , especially by those who have not throughly considered the case . When I set together Christs own Infant membership , and his kind reception of Infants , and his chiding those that would have kept them off , and his offers of taking in all the Jewish Nation into his Church , and that they were broken off by unbelief , and consequently the seed of Believers not broken off from the Church universal , and that whole housholds are oft said to be baptized , and that Paul pronounceth Believers children holy , and that Christ expresly , Matth. 28. commandeth his Ministers as much as in them lieth to Disciple all Nations baptizing , and it 's prophesied that the Kingdoms of the world shall be made the Kingdoms of Christ , and there is no Nation or Kingdom on earth that Infants are not members of ; All this and much more seemeth to me a plain revelation of Gods will , that as he never had a Church which excluded Infants , so he doth not now exclude them . And it is expresly said of the Jews that they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea , 1 Cor. 10.2 . where doubtless the Apostle in the name had respect to our being baptized into Christ , of which theirs was a typical Baptism ; And it is not said in vain that they were [ all baptized ] including their Infants , but as part of the Analogie , as if he had said [ As we now are all baptized into Christ . ] These things seem to me a certain notification of Gods will herein ; which in the foresaid former Treatise I have fullier opened and improved . And should I stand to answer all the words that Mr. Tombes hath said against it , I should needlesly tire the Reader and my Self , and lose that time which I cannot spare . A Confutation of Mr. Tombes's Reasons Sect. 52. by which he pretendeth to prove that Infants were not reckoned to the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times , nor are now . Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus : If no Infants were part of the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times , then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible membership before , must needs be repealed : But the antecedent is true , ergo , the consequent — The Antecedent I prove thus . If in all the days of Christ on earth , and the Apostles , no Infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian , then not in the primitive times : But , &c. Ergo , &c. The Minor proved — 1. All visible members of the Church-Christian were to be baptized : But no Infants were to be baptized : Therefore no Infants were visible members of the Christian Church . Answ . 1. To the Major ; they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted , Mat. 28.19 . but not before , when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples : Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancie . 2. To the Minor , If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized , what need he write his books ? Mr. T. 2. They were not visible members of the Church-Christian who were not of the body of Christ : But no Infant was of the visible body of Christ , proved from 1 Cor. 12.13 . All that were of the body of Christ were made to drink into one spirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper : But no Infant was made to drink into one spirit ; for none of them did drink that Cup , &c. Answ . Denying the Minor , I answer to the proof : 1. To the Major : 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only , and yet now he maketh it to be the visible . 2 [ All ] is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality : And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit , which is expresly there said of all the members , though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included , Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable . But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible , and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum , are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit . 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth , then Baptism is first included : and so if we prove Infants Church-members , this Text will prove them to be baptizable , according to Mr. T. Remember that . 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true , that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper , he may be turned about to confess himself : For , 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible ( if at all ) but as invisible also ; and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body have not the Sacrament . 2. By this his exposition , his adult Baptizing should not make or prove any to be visible Church-members till they drink of the Cup ; though it were a year or many years . 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through scruples ( about Church-orders , or their own fitness , which are the cases of multitudes ) should be visible members : Nor those that live where they cannot have the Sacrament : Nor any Lay-man in all the Popish Church , where the Cup is denied the Laity . 2. To the Minor , Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament , in order to the rest to be partaked of in due time : And as not every Church-suspension , so Natural-suspension of further priviledges , nullifieth not membership . Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 . All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken : But no Infant did partake — Answ . 1. Christ and his Disciples did not partake of it before the institution : 2. No baptized persons partake of it in the interspace between the two Sacraments : which with some is a long time : 3. A baptized person may die before he drinketh that Cup ; or may live where it is not lawfully to be had . 4. Church-members may be suspended from the Lords Table . Therefore the text speaketh not of every member , but of the ordinary communion of capable persons . Mr. T. Eph. 4.5 . The whole Church is one bodie , and hath one Lord , and one faith : But no Infant hath one faith ] Answ . 1. It is spoken of the generality of the noblest and capable members , denominating the Church : The Apostle saith not that every member hath all these , but [ There is one Lord , one faith , &c. ] Christ had not one Lord ( being Lord himself as here understood ) and yet was a member : Christ in the womb cannot be proved to have actually h●d that one faith ; and he was long the chief member before he was baptized : And whether ever the twelve Apostles were , is uncertain . 2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith , called objective faith ; one Creed : And this the Church might have , and yet not each member actually believe . For , 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God , his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Childs , who is used as a member of the Parent . Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the visible Church , who were left out of the number of the whole Church , all the Believers , the multitude of the Disciples , &c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Testament , Ergo : — Answ . 1. Many texts speak of all that were present only ; and many speak only of such as the present matter did concern : And it is most usual to denominate All or the Body from the Noblest and Greatest part . If you were to describe a Kingdom , would you not say that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures ( or men ) consenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects and the duties of each for the common welfare ? You would so define it as that Reason , Consent and Intention should be in the definition . Infants have none of these in act , and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom ( of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of ? ) So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now : And yet is it not usual with us to say that all the Church met to hear , or to do this or that ? When yet the Infants and many others might be absent . The Texts Mr. T. alledgeth are , Acts 1.15 . The number of the names together were about 120. Answ . Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as some do , yet reason is reason : Can we think that when Christ was seen after his resurrection of more than 500 Brethren at once , that only 120 of them were Christians ? And can we think that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and many more , were not timerous faint-hearted Christians ? It 's like that the text meaneth that this 120 was the number of those bold confirmed Christians who so quickly after Christs death appeared in open profession and conjunction with the Apostles , and had opportunity to assemble at that time and place . The next is Act. 2.1 . They were all with one accord in one place . Answ . This needeth no other answer than as before . The other texts , Act. 2.41 , 44. & 4.4 , 23 , 24. & 5.11 , 13 , 14. & 6.1 , 2 , 7. & 8.1 . & 15.22 . 1 Cor. 14.23 . need no other answer : His exposition would sometimes exclude women , and sometimes many of the men : Doth he believe no man or woman was a member of the Church , Act. 15.22 . who did not send men of their own company ? Nor any man or woman a member of the Church at Jerusalem , that did not being scattered go about Preaching , Act. 8.1 , &c. 1 Cor. 14. it is said , You may all prophesie , and yet women are forbidden . Mr. T. 4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible to whom the things ascribed to the whole Church did not agree : But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to Infants : Ergo — Answ . This is fully answered already . It is most usual to ascribe that to a Church or other Society which is done only by the most considerable part . As I said before , when rational Consent , Contract , Intention , are ascribed to a Kingdom ; which is constituted by the consent of King and Subjects : and yet Infants are members who consent not , save by their Parents . The Church meeteth to choose a Pastor , when yet the women meet not : The Church admonisheth a faulty member , when every woman doth not admonish him : Our Churches meet all to hear , when Children meet not , whom we take for members : These are not satisfactory allegations , being contrary to common use of words , and to many texts of Scripture . Mr. T. The Minor is proved , Matth. 16.18 . On this Rock will I build my Church , viz. by Preaching . Answ . When Preaching converted the Parents , they devoted themselves to God , and all that were in their trust and power ; and that Preaching brought in by consequence the Infants that did not hear . I prove it , 1. Christ commandeth the discipling of Nations and baptizing them ( that is , as much as in the Preacher lieth : ) But Infants are part of those Nations : Therefore he commandeth the discipling and baptizing of Infants , ( as much as in the Preacher lay , ) which could be done but by the success of preaching on the Parents . 2. The Kingdoms of the world are made the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ : But Infants are members of all those Kingdoms : But this is done at large elsewhere . Mr. T. 1 Cor. 1.2 . called to be Saints ; Act. 2.41 , 47. & 5.14 . They that were added to the Church did hear and believe , &c. Answ . I will not weary the Reader with repeating the same answers to the like things . Mr. T. 5. They who are not reckoned Christs Disciples were not visible Church-members : But Infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples : ergo . — Answ . 1. What is said before to the other Texts answereth all these . The Actions of adult Disciples only were in mention . 2. Infants are called Disciples , Acts 15. as I have elsewhere proved , on whose neck the yoak of Circumcision was laid ; And in Matth. 28.19 . when Nations are to be discipled . 3. Mr. T. himself confesseth that Christ was habitually and by designation a Prophet in Infancy , and that so may Infants be Disciples . Mr. T. 6. If in the distribution of the members of the Church then , Infants are not comprehended , then Infants were not visible Church-members — But , &c. Answ . 1. Here he instanceth in 1. The sex , Men and Women , 2. Jews and Gentiles , 3. Circumcision and uncircumcision , mentioned , but not Infants . But if Infants be of neither sex , male nor female , nor of Jews or Gentiles , nor circumcision nor uncircumcision , I plead not for them . 2. If those Texts cited by you mention not Infants , others do , as I have elsewhere proved : Our children are called Holy , and a blessed seed , and received by Christ , and of such is the Kingdom of God , &c. And you confess it of Christ himself in his Infancie , and yet now forget it , or contradict your self . Mr. T. 2. I argue from the common received definitions of the visible Church , Acts 19. of the Church of England : A congregation of faithful men — &c. Answ . And so Kingdoms and all Societies that Infants are members of , are accordingly defined , as is aforesaid . You cannot deny it . And was not the Church before Christs incarnation a society of faithful men , when yet you confess that Infants were visible parts of is ? Mr. T. 3. I argue , They are no visible members of the Christian Church , to whom no note whereby a visible Christian Church or Church-membership is discernable , doth agree : But , &c. ergo — Answ . When a man thinks only what to say for his cause , and never thinks what can be said against it , his judgement is of little value . 1. All that agreeth to Infants which was requisite to a visible Infant member before Christs coming ; And do you not confess that they were members then among the Jews ? 2. Did nothing in Christ himself in Infancy agree with visible membership ? Yes ; the open Revelations of God as to a visible person : You confess before as much as I need . 3. The essentiating qualification of a Church-member , is Covenant-consent , such as God according to the sense of his offered Covenant will accept as such : But Infants have this Covenant-consent , seeing they consent by their Parents who are entrusted to do it for them , as if they were parts of themselves : As the Jews Infants did . Mutual consent of God and themselves by their Parents is it that maketh them members . I have oft wondered to read in orthodox Divines , that the Word purely preached , Sacraments and Discipline , are the marks of the true Church . No doubt but Heart-consent to the Baptismal Covenant of Grace maketh a sincere member of the true Church ( which the Infant doth by the Parent , ) and professed consent to the same Covenant maketh a visible member ( which regularly must be by Baptism for investiture . ) But a true Church may long by persecution be hindred from publick assemblies , Preaching , Sacraments and Discipline ; And may have much corruption in all these . Mr. T. maketh this mutual consent as two distinct pretended Notes , denying either of them to be true marks . Answ . Neither the Princes consent alone , nor the Subjects alone maketh a Common-wealth : Neither the Husbands consent alone , or the Wives maketh a marriage ; but both conjunct : So here : Mutual consent maketh a Church-member : But so , that Gods Consent is the Donative efficient cause , and mans consent is the receptive cause , which is conditio sine qua non . They that will not impartially think of plain cases cannot understand them . Your unthankful denying that God hath made any such Promise , Covenant or Consent , is elsewhere confuted : And if I shall say with Davenant and the Synod of Dort that this Covenant being the same that is made with Parents themselves , giveth the Children the same Right to Pardon and Life eternal according to their capacity , so that faithful Parents should not doubt of the Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy ( ut Synod . Dort. Art. 1. c. 17. ) I could better with them bear the consequence ( of the loss of Gratia Infantilis in some at age ) than the consequents of 〈◊〉 turning them all out of the visible Church . The former I know no Christian that ever opposed for many and many hundred years after Christ ; and the latter the universal Church as long opposed : And yet I will not subscribe that [ It is certain by the word of God that baptized Infants dying before actual sin , are certainly saved , ] without excepting the Infants of Heathens or Infidels , wrongfully baptized . Mr. T. 4. I argue : They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Church-member , are not visible Church-members . But. Ergo. Profession of faith is the form constituting , &c. Answ . 1. Covenant Consent is the form constituting ex parte Recipientis , and this they have reputatively in their Parents , whose will is as theirs . 2. The Jews Infants had the form constituting a visible member as you confess . And that was not circumcision ; For the uncircumcised females , and males too in the wilderness were visible members : Nor was it to be born of Jews ; For apostate Jews forfeited it , and Proselytes of other Nations obtained it : But it was by consent to Gods Covenant . 3. And Christ was a visible member by Divine Revelation . His arguings would make against Christs Righteousness Imputed to believers , and Adams or the Parents sins imputed to them . Mr. T. 5. If Infants be visible Christian Church-members , then there may be a visible Church-Christian which consists only of Infants of believers — But this is ●bsurd : Ergo. Answ . Such quibbles seem something when the Will giveth them their force . 1. Infants are members of all Kingdoms under Heaven : And yet there neither is nor can be a Kingdom of Infants only . 2. Members are Essential or Integral . Because the exercise of the faculties of the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita is the intended means to the Common Good , which is the End of Government , therefore there can be no Governed Society , Kingdom or other proper Policy of which men that have the use of Reason are not members : that there be some such to be the Active part is Essential to the Society : But yet Infants that are yet but virtually such , are Integral members . Mr. T. 6. I argue : If Infants be visible Church-members , there is some Cause of it : But there is no Cause : Ergo — Answ . The Cause efficient is Gods Revealed Donation and Covenant Consent : The Cause Receptive or the Condition of Reception , is That this be the Child of a Consenting believer . Mr. T. To this 1. Mr. T. denyeth any such Covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed ( which is soon said . ) 2. He saith the Conditional Covenant promiseth Justification , Salvation , on Condition of faith , and not visible Church-membership , and so belongs to all as Mr. B. &c. Answ . 1. It giveth both Justification and visible membership ; that is , Right to both and many other Covenant benefits . 2. It belongeth Conditionally to all , and Conditionally gives union with Christ and his Church , and Pardon and life to all : But actually to none , till the condition be performed ; which is a believing Parents consent , and regularly his Baptismal dedication . Mr. T. If there were a Covenant to the faithful and their seed , to be their God , yet this would not prove their Infants Christian visible Church-membership : As he is the God of Abraham , of Infants dying in the wombs of believers at the hour of death — Answ . It 's true , if they be not the Children of visible believers ; because they are not visibly capable subjects . But it being such that we speak of , your three instances are abusive . 1. Abraham is a visible Church-member of the Church Triumphant where he is . I will not believe you if you deny it . 2. Infants of visible Christians dying in the womb , are in that degree visible Church-members as they are visible persons : that is , It is a known thing that they are the children of God according to their capacity . 3. One visibly believing at the hour of death is a visible Church-member : One not visibly believing belongeth not to our case . Mr. T. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition , may be in act , and the effect not be , then the cause which Mr. B. assigneth is not sufficient . But &c. For they may all be before the child is born . Answ . A meer quibble . 1. Before he is born I tell you as far as he is visibly the child of a visible Christian , so fa● he is a visible unborn member : But as to that degree of visible membership which is proper to born baptizable Infants , two causes are wanting to the unborn : 1. Gods consent or donation : For though the Promise as a donative Instrument was existent a thousand years before , it effecteth not the gift till the subject be Receptive or capable : God may promise a thousand years before in diem or sub conditione , which signifyeth his consent that so and then it shall be due , and not otherwise or before . These easie things should not be thus winked at . 2. The Parents consent is wanting : For though the Parent dedicate the child in the womb to God by promise , yet he doth not deliver him up in the baptismal Covenant as a visible person till he is born . Mr. T. reciting my answer elsewhere saith [ It deserveth a smile : For I make Christ by his Law or Covenant-grant the only cause efficient ] The rest of his words are 1. To tell us that Justification &c. hath a further efficient after the Covenant ; which causeth Justificability , but not actual Justification without mans faith . 2. That I err in taking visible membership to be a Right , and moral effect . Answ . I take not that for the picture of the wisest man , whom the Painter draweth laughing or smiling . And I am now confirmed in that fancy . 1. A Testament or Deed of Gift in diem which saith At seven years end that land shall be yours ] may be the only efficient Instrument , long before existent , and yet give you no right till the time ; and then give it ▪ Because it effecteth but by signification of the Donors will. Must the Christendom of Kingdoms be impetuously questioned by men that know not such rudiments as these ? 2. That Justification which is given us at our believing , which is [ our Right to Impunity and Life ] is the Immediate effect of the Covenant Donation ; and mans faith is no efficient but a Recipient cause of it ( As even they confess that call it a Receiving Instrument : ) And yet we have it not till we believe or consent . Who would have thought that such a m●n as you had taken your own faith to be an efficient cause of your own Justification , and so that you justifie your self ? And what if one give land to you and your heirs ? It is none of theirs till they are in being : And yet their birth is no efficient cause , but only the cause of the subjects receptive capacity . I am ashamed that you put me thus to catechize you . Mr. T. 5. If visible Church-membership be antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant , then the Covenant is not the cause of it . But &c. Ergo — Answ . The word [ Interest ] may signifie the Interest that fallen mankind hath in the Covenant as conditional antecedent to mans consent : And thus I suppose neither you nor I here speak of it . But if by my Interest you mean , that I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to its benefits , I answer , Some benefits follow long after : but when I consent , then I am the person to whom the Covenant giveth a present Right to union with Christ , in the first instant and consequently with his Church or body in the second : so that here is no such thing as your feigned membership before Covenant interest , that is , before a Right to that Relation by Gods donation . And as 〈…〉 former dream that this is not a Right an● moral effect but a physical , it was your self and not I that subjected you to the shame of such an assertion , which I will no more confute . Mr. T. 6. If the Covenant &c. be the only 〈…〉 bought Orphans of Turks , wholly at our dispose , are no visible members , &c. Answ . No friend of truth will run into the dark with a controversie , and argue à minus notis . Many judicious Divines think that Gods Covenant with Abrahams Infants born in his house , proveth that two things go to make up the capacity of an Infant for baptism : 1. That he be his own and at his dispose who offereth him to God. 2. That he be offered or dedicated by a Consenting Owner . Now their reason is because if they be our own , we have the dispose of them for their good , and our wills are theirs . But the case is most clear about those that by Generation are our own , and darker about those that are by Adoption or purchase our own . Now here you do nothing but deny the darker ( which you cannot disprove ) and thence the plainer which we have fully proved . Mr. T. 7. If the Covenant o● Law with the Parents actual faith without profession , make not the Parent a visible Church-member , neither doth it the child . But — Ergo. Answ . I grant both major and minor : He that is not known to have faith , is not a visible adult member : And he that is not known to be the ( justly reputed ) child of a professed believer , is 〈◊〉 an Infant Church-member . And what 's this 〈◊〉 our controversie ? Heart consent maketh a mystical or invisible Christian and member , and Professed belief ( that is , Believing Consent ) maketh a visible member of the parent , and is necessary to the visible membership of the child : If I may call that Making them , which is but the Disposition of the material Receptive constitutive cause . It 's pitty we should have need to talk at this rate . Mr. T. 8. If persons are visible Church-members and not by the Covenant of Grace , then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant is the sole efficient of visible Church-membership . The minor is proved in Judas and hypocrites . Answ . 1. They are not the sole efficient ; Gods Love and mercy also is efficient . 2. You profess your self that the name [ Christian and Church-member ] are equivocal as to the sincere and the hypocrites : If they be not the same things , no wonder if they have not the same causes . That Donation or Covenant may be the sole nearest Instrumental efficient of True membership , and yet not of Equivocal . 3. God who is our Paternal Beneficient Ruler doth give some of his benefits by his Law or Covenant absolutely and antecedently to mans conditions , and some consequently as Rewards : And Gods Laws having first a Preceptive part , as well as a Donative or Premiant , a Right may accrue in foro ecclesiae to an hypocrite from that precept : As e. g. God antecedently doth by his Covenant give the world an Impunity as to the punishment of Drowning it : And so by his common Law of Grace he giveth the world many common mercies by a Redeemer , and perhaps many by that you call a physical act , immediately . And by his Law he ( having given a conditional pardon and life to all ) commandeth his Ministers to offer it , and All men to Accept it , and his Ministers to judge by mens profession , and to use professed Accepters as real ; because we cannot see the heart . This being so , when the hypocrite professeth his consent , the Law obligeth the Minister and Church to receive it , by which in foro ecclesiae he hath a right to his Church station . And Christ himself called Judas , and sent him out to Preach , and his mandates were as Laws . So that the Right that an hypocrite hath , he hath by the Law which obligeth the Church to use him as a true believer , upon his professing to be such . None of this can be denyed . But Judas was called immediately by Christ himself ; and his [ follow me ] was a precept which gave him a Right to his Relation . Mr. T. 9. If Infants are visible members by the Covenant on Condition that the Parents &c. then either the next Parents or in any generation precedent &c. Answ . The next Parents that are Owners of the child , and have the trust and power of disposing of him or covenanting for him : And the Reason is , because they have 1. That Propriety , and 2. That trust and power . Mr. T. 10. If an Infants visible Church-membership be by the Covenant on the Parents actual believing , and not a bare profession , then it is a thing that cannot be known , &c. Answ . I pitty Readers that must be troubled with such kind of talk . 1. The Right of the child is upon [ the Believing Parents dedication of that child to God by consenting that he be in the mutual Covenant . ] 2. Heart consent known only to God giveth no Right coram ecclesia , known to men , but only to such mercy as God who only knoweth it , giveth without the Churches judgement . 3. Believing and profession qualifie for Right in the Judgement both of God and of the Church . 4. Profession without consenting faith , qualifieth for Right , in the Churches judgement according to Gods Command , who biddeth them so judge and do : Wrangle not against plain truth . Mr. T. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a Covenant upon the Parents faith , without the persons own act and consent , then neither this . But &c. Not to be a Believer , a disciple , a Minister , a Son of God — There is the like reason for them as for this . Answ . Priviledges are 1. Proper to the adult , ( those concern not our case , as to be Ministers ) or common to them with Infants : 2. Priviledges consist either in Physical qualities or other Physical accidents ( and these are given by physical Action , and such is Knowledge , Belief , Love , Gifts of utterance , health , &c. ) Or in Right and Moral Relation , ( Jus Debitum , obligatio ) These are given by Moral means , that is by signification of the Donors will , by precept ( obliging , ) promise or signal Donation , which is the Instrument of conveyance by that signification ( As a Testament , Deed of Gift , Act of pardon and oblivion , &c. are among men . ) Now do you think that the reason of Physical Qualities and Moral Rights , Relations and duties is the same ? 2. As a Disciple , or believer , signifieth one that is Reputatively such jure Relationis , and as a Son of God signifieth an Adopted heir of heaven , loved of God as a reconciled Father in Christ ] so Infants are such : You say ( after ) that Christ was habitually and by designation the Head and Prophet of the Church in Infancy , and so mihgt Infants be disciples : And will you now deny it ? Again I will say though it offend you , that there is no trusting to that mans judgement that looketh all ( or partially ) on one side , and studieth so eagarly what will serve his cause , as that he cannot mind what may be said against it . See here what two abhominations you thrust on your pittiful followers ( which yet I know you hold not your self , but the heat of your spirit in desire of victory draweth you to say you mind not what ) You conclude that none is [ A Son of God ] without his own consent : And so 1. All Infants are certainly shut out of Heaven : for they are no Sons of God without their consent ( neither by Election , Christs intercession , Covenant or Gift : ) And I think you will not say that they consent : And if no sons , no heirs ; For the Inheritance is only of children : And if no sons , then are they not Regenerate ; which is but to be made sons of God by a new Generation , and renewed to his Image . And do you damn all Infants ? 2. And consider whether you deny not Christ in Infancy to have been the Son of God according to his humane nature ? For you can never prove that in that nature he actually consented in the womb or in his Infancy . But partiality is rash and blind . Mr. T. 12. If there be no Law or ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this Infant visible Church-membership is granted , or the listing of Infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty , then it is not a cause of Infants visible Church-membership which Mr. B. assigns , &c. Answ . I have here proved to you such a Law and Covenant before Christs Incarnation , and formerly at large proved it to be continued and renewed by special signification of Christs will since his Incarnation in the Gospel . Review now your pittiful Reasons against it . The Second Part : A CONFUTATION OF THE Strange FORGERIES OF Mr. H. DANVERS , Against the ANTIQUITY OF INFANT BAPTISM ; And of his many Calumnies against my Self and my Writings , with a Catalogue of 56 New Commandments and Doctrines , which he and the Sectaries who joyn with him in those Calumnies seem to own . By Richard Baxter . LONDON , Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson . 1675. The PREFACE . SECT . I. 1. Of Controversies : 2. Of the Weight of this Controversie . § . 1. IT is a thing that all are not duely informed of , How far Controversial Writings and Disputes are to be practised by pious and peaceable men ? And here ( as in almost all things else ) men are hardly cured of one extream but by another . I. No doubt but the extream which hath far most injured the Church of Christ , hath been the excess of Disputing ; and given just occasion to Sr. W.'s motto , [ The Itch of Disputing makes the Scab of the Church , ] which is easily discernable , both in the Cause and the Effects . § . 2. 1. In the cause it is too notorious , that ordinarily it proceedeth from the depravation of the three faculties of the soul , Potestative , Intellective , Volitive , in the three great Principles of iniquity , Pride , Ignorance and wrath . § . 3. 1. Did not Pride cause men much to overvalue their own parts and worth , Controversie would have shrunk into a narrower compass before this day : Men would have come to one another as friends to be informed of what they know not , by enquiry and gentle conferences , if not as children to School , to learn : And if grace by hard studies had given one man more insight into any matters than another , humility would readily have acknowledged Gods gifts , and desired to have the benefit of a friendly communication ; and whereever God had set up a light , the Children of his family would have been ready to work by it : It would not have been so hard as now it is for an Ignorant man to know his Ignorance , nor to discern when another knoweth more than he . § . 4. But now , alas , a multitude that understand not half their Catechism hear their Teachers as Masters hear their Scholars , to know whether they say their lesson well or not : And the Preacher that saith as they would have him , may pass for orthodox at least , if not for a very wise man , because he is , so far , as wise as they : But if he will presume to teach them more than they know , they suspect him of heresie , and the repetition of his Sermon which they make , is to mangle some sentences which they had not wit enough to understand , and thence to proclaim ( or whisper abroad at least ) that the Preacher hath some dangerous errors , ( and doth not know so much as they ; ) unless it be some luscious unwholesom notions that he offereth them , or be a militant wrangler and would list them under him as his troop , to serve him in some new raised war , and then corrupt nature can magnifie novelties as if they were new revelations from Heaven . § . 5. And O that the Teachers wanted not the sense of their intellectual imperfections , as well as the people ! But too many think that when they are all ordained into the same office , the honour of the same office is equally due to them all , and consequently all that honour of Knowledge , Parts and Piety , without which the honour of the office cannot be well kept up . And so when they all walk in the same robes and are called by the same titles , matters which they never understood , must pass according to the major vote , or at least , they must not be contradicted , nor their ignorance made known : And therefore when they have owned or uttered a Doctrine or Sentence , their honour is engaged to make it good ; And they find a far easier way to make ostentation of the Knowledge which they have not , by robes , titles and big words , than to macerate their bodies by imploying their minds in serious long unwearied studies , till they have received into their minds the well digested frame of sacred truths . § . 6. And if this tribe can keep the major vote ( as it must be a strangely happy country where they do not ) whoever will be wiser than they , shall be a heretick . But if it fall out better , and they be the weaker part , they will make up their honour by the way of singularity among so many as they can get to believe , that they are masters of some excellent truths which almost all the Christian world is unacquainted with . § . 7. And even in men otherwise truly pious , there is so much remaining pride as is greatly gratified by singularity : Selfishness and the Old man are but One. And an opinion that is peculiarly their own , is as lovely to them , as their own Children in comparison of others : If they can say , ego primus inveni , it is sweetest : If not , yet to be one of a singular Society , that is supposed wiser , and better and more excellent in their way of worship than all others , is very comfortable to them , that by taking the elect to be fewer than they are , do judge it a good mark to hold what few hold , and do as few do . § . 8. And there may be a conjunction of good and evil in the cause of these effects . And from hence we now live among many that fall into various kinds of Sects , and every one hopeth for the comforts of singularity in their way . Many turn Quakers , because they are singular in their austerities : And many Congregations will not endure the singing of Gods Praise in Psalms , at least in Davids Psalms ; and some will not have the Scriptures read , and some are against humane learning and studies , and some against Preaching upon a Text , and Praying before and after Sermon , and some against ordinary Family-worship , and many startle if they hear the Creed , the Lords-Prayer and Commandments ; and hence also the Doctrine of denying all Christians Infants Church-membership hath prospered . § . 9. And too many honest persons in opposition to ungodliness , are disaffected to lawful and laudable things in the worship of God meerly because the Vngodly use them : When as experience telleth all the world , that they that have no Religion in sincerity , will usually joyn with the Religion that is uppermost ; And so if good Rulers and Teachers set up that which is best , the best will be outwardly the way of the ungodly ; and if we must needs be singular from them we must take the worst , and leave them the best : to their self deceit and our shame . § 10. I have thought by this weakness of some singular people , that , if God should but let us have a King and other Rulers that were Antinomians , and against Infant Baptism , and against singing Psalms , and against the use of the Creed and Lords Prayer , and such other things , and withal were themselves of wicked lives , and would make Laws for their own way , and impose it on the people , so that the ungodly multitude did fall into this way , it would presently cure most that are now for such opinions : And though the Godly and the wicked must be greatly differenced in the Church , yet before we are aware , our secret Pride sets in with this desire of discipline , and maketh us much desire to seem eminently Good , by a more notable and conspicuous difference from the common sort of Christians than God in Scripture or reason doth allow . 2. And how much Ignorance hath to do in all our controversies , would soon be acknowledged if the question concerned not our selves : For every disputer accuseth his adversary of Ignorance : If they be of ten minds ( inconsistent ) nine of them must needs be erroneous , and therefore Ignorant , and yet every one chargeth it on the rest , and thinks that he alone is free . Alas , that mans soul , which here must act in such a puddle of brains , and in so frail a receptive engine as it here useth , should have such high and confident thoughts of its own untryed and undigested conceptions that will not let Ignorance be acknowledged or cured ! Most certainly we are all so dark and weak , that it is but a few Great necessary things , or such as are very plain , which we have cause to be confident of , without all suspicion of mistake . Most certainly natural dulness , or short and superficial studies , through sloth or diversions , or want of right teachers , or an early reception of wrong methods or opinions , leading unto more , and many such causes , doth and will keep not only most Christians , but most Teachers of the Church in so low a measure of Knowledge , as unfitteth them to master and manage very difficult controversies : And yet sad experience telleth us , that he that is least able to speak , is oft least able to hold his tongue ; And it 's too rare to find a man that is not Ignorant of his Ignorance , and that chargeth not him with Pride that will presume to contradict him . What wonder then if disputes be endless ? § . 12. 3. And that wrath is in the cause needs no proof but experience , while we see men come forth with militant dispositions , and animosity is their valour , and how to make their adversaries seem contemptible or odious is their work . § . 13. 2. And if I should but open to you the Disputing evil , in the effects as I have done in the Causes , what a woful tragedy , of 1500 years duration , should I present you with ? But I shall put off that part of the work , supposing that sight and experience do inform you more effectually than words can do . § . 14. On all these accounts I still say as Paul , The servant of the Lord must not ( needlesly ) strive , nor meddle with those wranglings which minister Questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith : For the end of the Commandment is Love out of a pure heart , and a good Conscience and faith unfeigned : And the high pretenders are too often [ proud , knowing nothing , but doting about questions and strifes of words ; whereof cometh envy , strife , railing , evil surmising , perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth . § . 15. II. But yet for all this , as Politicians use to tell Tyrants , that if God and man did but secure them from all resistance , men would flie from them as from Tigers or Crocodiles , and suppose their boundless uncontrouled pride and cruelty would be insatiable ; so I say of Heretitical and truly Schismatical Contenders , that If they were once secured that whatever folly , heresie , or ungodly mischievous conceits they vend , and that with the greatest industry and turbulency to deceive the people , no man yet must contradict them , nor open their folly that it may be known to all , and go no further , for fear of being taken for a man of disputation , controversie and strife , this would so embolden them to attempt the seduction of all sorts of people , that no place would be safe or quiet . § . 16. It is a foolish pretence of peaceableness and quietness , to stand by in silence for fear of our own or others trouble , and see well-meaning people seduced , Christ and his truth and name abused , and God dishonoured , and his Churches shaken , and made a scorn and scandal to the world , and all for fear of being accounted contentious . If it be lukewarm ( as they say themselves ) to hear dayly swearers , cursers , scorners , and such other prophane sinners , and not give them a close reproof or admonition , so much more is it to see or hear hurtful falshoods published as the precious truths of God , and not to contradict it , nor endeavour to save mens souls from the infection . If Satans work must be done without resistance as oft as a mistaken well-meaning man will do it , there will be little safety for the flocks . § . 17. When Paul fore-told the Ephesians of two sorts that would assault them , viz. Grievous devouring wolves , and men arising among themselves that would speak perverse things to draw away disciples after them , his conclusion is [ Therefore watch ] : And what that watching is he tells Timothy , The mouths of such deceivers must be stopped : not by force , for that Timothy had no power to do ; but by evident truth . And Truth hath a power in its evidence , if it be but rightly opened and managed . And were it not that God in all ages had enabled some of his servants , faithfully and clearly to vindicate truth , and defend sound doctrine , and hold fast the form of wholesome words , and stop the mouth of ignorant pride that wrangleth against them , what had become of us long agoe ? And though ill disputes have done much mischief , and too often disputing succedeth more according to the Parts , interests or advantages of the Disputers , than according to the evidence of truth : Yet for all such abuses , Truth must be defended , and it findeth something even in nature ( as bad as man is ) to befriend it ; few love a plain falshood , unless where interest greatly bribeth them : And upon tryal Truth will at last prevail , where sin doth not provoke God in judgement to leave men to the delusions which they chuse . § . 18. If then the way be to Teach and Learn , and quietly open the evidence of truth , and in meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves , and to avoid contentions as we avoid wars , till other mens ass●ults do make them unavoidably necessary ; and yet not to be cowardly betrayers of the Truth and Church of God , nor suffer Satan to deceive men unresisted , but earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints , It must be considered , I. To whom this earnest contending may be used , II. And by whom . § . 19. I. We must not be over sharp or earnest , 1. With those that are yet strangers to Religion , of whose conversion there is hope , and who are liker to be won by a gentler way , which more demonstrateth love and tenderness , 2 Tim. 2.25 , 26. § . 20. 2. Nor with Godly Christians who fall into such sins of infirmity as we are lyable to , and whose tenderness maketh compassionate tender dealing fittest to their recovery , Gal. 6.1 , 2 , 3. § . 21. 3. Nor with humbled dejected Christians who are apter than we to aggravate their own faults , and have need of comfort , to restrain their sorrows and keep them from despair , 2 Cor. 2.7 . § . 22. 4. Nor with sinners that under conversion and repentance are humbling themselves by confession to God and man , Luk. 15. Philem. 10 , 16 , 17. § . 23. 5. Nor with Christians that differ from us in tolerable matters , and manage their differences but with tolerable infirmities , not hazarding the safety of the Church or mens souls . § . 24. But in these cases we must use plainness , sharpness and earnestness . 1. When in secret ( where mens honour with others is not concerned ) it is necessary to mens convict●on and repentance ; 1. Because of the Greatness of the sin or error , which will not be known if it be not truly opened and aggravated . 2. Or by reason of the hard-heartedness or obstinacy of the sinner , that will not be convinced or humbled by easier means . § . 25. 2. And when we are called so to admonish a publick sinner for his crimes or heresies , which must be opened as they are , before he will be convinced and humbled openly before the Church . § . 26. 3. And when the people or Church is in danger of being infected by the sin or error , if the evil of it be not fully and plainly opened , and the sinner rebuked before all , that others may beware . § . 27. 4. When the offender or heretick sheweth us by his obstinacy , that we have no cause to expect his cure and conviction , but are only to defend Gods truth and mens souls against him , then he must be used as Christ did the Pharisees : and as Rulers execute malefactors not for their own good , but for the warning of others and preservation of the innocent . § . 28. 5. And when our gentle speeches tend to scandalize those without , and make them think that we prevaricate and favour Christians in their sins . § . 29. All these cases you may see proved 1. In Nathans dealing with David , and Christs with Peter , Matth. 16. and Pauls , Gal. 2. &c. 2. In Pauls dealing with the incestuous man , 1 Cor. 5. and Peters with Ananias and his wife . 1 Tim. 5.20 . Them that sin rebuke before all , &c. 2 Tim. 4.2 . Tit. 1.13 . Rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith ( cuttingly ) Tit. 2.15 . Rebuke with all authority ; especially when we deal with Inferiors who must be humbled , Tit. 3.10 , 11. Mat. 23. throughout : And Eli's gentleness or remisness is our warning . § . 30. II. And as to the persons who must use this sharpness and earnestness against errors and sinners in contending for the faith , 1. It is not those who overvalue their own conceptions , and grow fond of all that is peculiarly their own , and insolently take all men to be enemies to truth and faith and godliness , who are adversaries to their odd opinions . 2. Nor must inferiors rise up with insolency against superiors , or the young against their elders , and the ignorant against the wife , on pretence of a zealous standing for the truth ; Though they may humbly and modestly defend that which is truth indeed . 3. Nor should unstudyed Christians presently think hardly of any party and backbite them , and inveigh against them , because their Leaders call them hereticks or reproach them as erroneous dangerous men : ( as almost all parties do against each other . ) 4. Nor should those Ministers who have not a through insight into a Controversie , meddle much with it , nor be too forward to reprove and reproach where they do not understand , nor to undertake disputes which they cannot manage . 5. But as God doth indow men with various gifts , if each man were imployed according to his talent , all would have their honour and comfort , and the Church the benefit of them all . § . 31. We have notoriously all these sorts of Ministers in the world . 1. Carnal , proud and worldly hypocrites , who are enemies to that which is against their pride and worldly interest : These contend malignantly against Godliness . 2. Ignorant , idle , fleshly droans , that eat and drink and mind the world , but meddle not much with controversies . 3. Professors of Religious zeal , who espouse some singular dividing way , and turn all their studies to make good their mistakes ; who have laudable abilities perverted by prejudice , error and interest . 4. Honest Preachers that serve God in practical preaching ; but being but half studied in some controversies , are yet as forward and busie in disputing , censuring and reproving dissenters , as if they knew as much as the cause requireth . I would all these would meddle with no controversies , but what great necessity in plain and certain cases calls them to . 5. We have many humble truly Godly men , who as they are conscious that they are not well studied for controversie , so they meddle not with it but lay out themselves in preaching the truths that we all agree in , and do God and his Church much service in quietness and peace : These are the men that the Church is most beholden to . 6. Some are judicious and very fit for controversie , but too cold in the practical part of Religion . 7. Some excellent holy men ( like Augustine ) have so digested the matter , as to be able to defend the truth against all adversaries and live accordingly . Only these two last sorts should be imployed in such disputes . SECT . II. Of the weight and nature of the present controversie . § . 1. I think it a matter in this distracted age , which you may be much concerned in , to know what weight is to be laid on the controversie about Infant Baptism that you may neither come too short nor go too far . For my part , when the Christian Parent ( or owner ) to whom God in Nature and Scripture hath intrusted the Infant , doth heartily dedicate him to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , and consent that he stand related according to the Baptismal Covenant , I am none of those that believe that God who is a Spirit , layeth so much upon the application of the water , as to damn any such Infant meerly for the want of it . And though I cannot subscribe to as much more , as some would have me ( who think so much better of their own understandings than ever any evidence perswaded me to do , as to judge themselves worthy to be Creed-makers for all others , yea and to be called The Church it self , ) yet I approve of the seventeenth Canon of the Synod of Dort Art. 1. that [ faithful Parents have no cause to doubt of the salvation of their children dying in Infancy . ] § . 2. And I hope all the pious Anabaptists themselves do virtually though not actually devote their children to God , and consent to their Covenant relation , while they vehemently plead against it . For surely they have so much natural affection , that if they did think that God would be a God in special Covenant with their children , and pardon their Original sin , and give them right to future life , upon the Parents dedication and consent , they would undoubtedly accept the gift , and be thankful ? And I believe most of them would say , [ I would do all that God intrusteth and enableth me to do , that my child may be a child of God , and I would give him up to God and accept any mercy for him as far as God doth authorize me so to do . ] § . 3. And if Parents and Owners will not consent that their children be in Covenant with God and be baptized , I am not yet satisfied what remedy we have , nor who can do it for them to as good effect . For if any one may do it , as some plead , then all Heathens children may be so used and saved : And he that perswadeth me that there is extant such a Covenant or promise of God that he will save every Heathens child that is but by any one brought to baptism , 1. He must shew me that text where this promise is . 2. And when he hath done , he will leave me perswaded that God will save all Heathens Infants whether baptized or not . 1. Because I and ten thousand more Christians would sit in our closets and offer to God all the Infants in the world ; that is , consent that he be their reconciled God , and they his children and in Covenant with him : what good man would not desire their salvation ? 2. And I should not easily believe that God will damn them all meerly for want of a strangers consent to save them , were that wanting . 3. Much less that when we do consent a thousand or ten thousand miles off , that all the children e. g. in China or Siana shall be baptized and saved , that this shall not hinder their damnation meerly because the Infants and we are so distant that we cannot in sight and presence offer them to God : surely if my consent that a Turks child be baptized and saved will do it if he were with me , it may do it a mile off : and if so , then ten thousand miles off . 4. And if I be impowred to consent , I shall never believe that the bare want of the water will damn him , who hath all things else that God hath made necessary to his salvation ( as I said before . ) I think they give too much to Baptism , who say that God will either save any one by it , who wanteth other things necessary to salvation , or that he will damn any for want of it ( that is , of the washing of the body ) who want nothing else which is necessary to salvation . And I doubt they that say otherwise will prove dishonourers of the Christian Religion , by feigning it to be too like to the Heathenish superstition , laying mens salvation on a ceremony as of absolute necessity : And I am confident it is contrary to Christs redoubled lesson , Go learn what that meaneth , I will have mercy and not sacrifice : And no men shall unteach me this great and comfortable lesson , which Christ hath so industriously taught me , and which hath been long written so deeply on my heart , as hath made all unmerciful persecutions and separations , and alienations very displeasing to me . § . 4. I have proved afterwards that even Augustine himself doth as on great deliberation assert that where the Ministry of baptism is not despised , Heart conversion without it sufficeth to salvation in the adult : And no scripture or reason doth make it absolutely necessary to Infants , if not to the adult . § . 5. And if Heathens Infants are not damned meerly for want of outward baptism , nor yet for want of the consent of others ( either because that other mens consent who are strangers to them is not necessary to their salvation , or if it be necessary they have it at a distance ) then it will follow that all the Infants of Heathens are in a state of salvation , unless somewhat else be yet proved necessary to it : And if they are all saved , then so are all Christians Infants also , or else they are more miserable than Heathens . And if you can first believe that the Infants of all Infidels , Atheists , and ungodly Christians ( hypocrites ) have a promise of salvation , you will next be inclined to think better of their Parents state than God alloweth you : And where is this promise ? § . 6. Some say that the new Covenant giveth grace and life to all that do not ponere obicem . But I must have Gods Covenant in his own terms , that I may have it in his own sense , if I will be assured of the benefits . Non ponere obicem signifieth plainly no Action or positive qualification as necessary , but only a negation of some contrary action : And it is certain that the terms of Gods Covenant to the adult are clean contrary ; It is not he that neither Believeth nor opposeth faith shall be saved , or he that doth neither good nor harm , as a man in an apoplexy , or asleep : But [ he that believeth shall be saved , and he that believeth not shall be damned ; And except ye repent ye shall all perish ; And without holiness none shall see God : ] But a meer negation is no holiness . § . 7. And if any will feign another Covenant for Infants , let him shew what and where it is ; for I know but one Covenant of grace , which taketh in the Infants with the Authorized Parents , whose members or Own God taketh them to be , and requireth a positive believing consent and dedication to God , as the positive condition : which is more than a Negative ( non ponere obicem , ) though performed by the Parent for the child : And so the promises throughout the Scripture run to the faithful and their seed . § . 8. I know that God promiseth to bless children through many generations , for their faithful Ancestors sake : But that is on supposition that fidelity continue in the line , and that apostasie make no intercision . Else all should be blessed for the sake of Noe , even Cham's posterity as well as Shem's . § . 9. What then is the thing made necessary ( and sufficient ) by the Covenant to their salvation , but that they be the seed of the faithful devoted by them to God , that is , that their Parents natural , or at least civil , whose Own they are , and have the power of disposing of them for their good , do enter them by consent into the Covenant with Christ ? which it is supposed that Faithful Parents virtually did before , and will actually do when God doth call them to it . § . 10. As to them that say , [ the thing further necessary as the condition of the Infants acceptance and salvation is [ A promise to educate the Child as a Christian if he live ] I answer , 1. That promise indeed is included in his dedication and consent ; 2. But who but the Owners of the child are capable of making such a promise ? ( unless as seconds promising that the Owners shall do their duty ) : For only he that owneth him can educate him ( by himself or others ) or dispose of him for his education : who hath power to dispose of another mans child , and educate him ? They that undertake as sureties to do it , in case the Parents apostatize or die , do plainly imply , 1. That till then it is the Parent that is intrusted to do it ; and therefore that the Parent must consent to do it ; and therefore that the Parent must enter his child in the Covenant of Christ : 2. And that if the Parents apostatize or die , they will take the child themselves as their Own ; or else by what power can they educate him or dispose of him ? § . 11. They that say , God did not save one for the faith or consent of another ; must remember , 1. That we are all saved for the meritorious Righteousness of Christ , by the way of a free gift , whose condition is but suitable acceptance : And why may not a Parent accept a donation for his Child , who hath no will to accept it for himself ? Shall he be certainly shut out unto damnation ? Or shall he have that gift absolutely which is conditional to all others ? Or is he not concerned in the donation at all ? 2. And remember that we have guilt and misery from our Parents ; and therefore though life and pardon be by Christ only , yet it is congruous that the meer condition of acceptance may be performed by the Parents . § . 12. Perhaps some will lay all the right of Infants to the pardon of sin , and salvation , upon secret election only ; as if all that we knew of Infants Salvation were that God will save some whom he hath elected : but that there is no Promise of grace and salvation to any particular Infant in the world , as under any condition or qualification : And if this be so , then , 1. No Infant hath any Right to pardon , grace and salvation , given him by the Covenant of Grace ; No more than any elect person at age hath before faith and regeneration : Election gave Paul ( nor any wicked man ) no right to pardon or salvation : Else elect Pagans and Infidels are justified ; if they have jus ad impunitatem & Regnum Coelorum . 2. And if this be so , we have no assurance that God will save ten or three Infants in all the world : For he hath not told us whether he hath elected so many . 3. And yet we cannot be sure but that they may all or almost all be saved , while the number of the elect is unrevealed . 4. Nor can we know that any more of the Children of the Faithful are saved , than of the Heathens or Infidels ; of those that love God and keep his Commandments , than of those that hate him . 5. And , in a word , we have then no proper hope , upon Covenant right , that God will save any one individual Infant in the world : For we can hope ( in this proper sense ) of nothing but what we do believe , and we can believe nothing but what is promised or revealed . And so Parents must be thus far hopeless . § . 13. God who made man after his Image , teacheth him to govern according to those principles which are his Image : And all the Kingdoms in this world take Infants for Infant-members ; and the Laws give them Right to Honours and Inheritances , the possession and use whereof they may have in the time and degrees that nature doth capacitate them . And can we then think that God who made a Conditional Gift of Pardon and Salvation to all the adult persons in the world , did wholly leave out Infants , and that his Covenant giveth them no rights at all ; no not to be members of his visible Church ? § . 14. It seemeth to me a matter of doubtful consequence to assert , that God will save more ( yea so great numbers as we will hope are saved in Infancie ) than ever he promised to save , and gave any antecedent Right to Salvation to ? I doubt we shall open such a gap to the hopes of presumptuous Heathens and Infidels this way , as will cross our common doctrine : If God may save whole Kingdoms and millions of Heathens Infants to whom he never gave Right to Salvation by any gift or promise , meerly because he elected them ; some will say , why may he not do so also by the Parents ; at least renewing them all in transitu ? § . 15. If you say that He giveth them freely his sanctifying grace , and giveth them right to Salvation as sanctified , though he tell us not who are sanctified , I answer , 1. Take heed lest you teach the presumptuous to say the same of Infidels , Heathens and almost all , that God may in the passages when they are dying sanctifie and save them all . 2. Still this giveth no positive hope of any particulars , nor more to Christians for their Children than they may have of the Children of Infidels ; nor any promise of the spirit and sanctification , as Believers have . § . 16. I take it therefore for the soundest Doctrine that Gods taking the Children of the Faithful into Covenant with him , and becoming their God and taking them for his own , doth signifie no less than a state of Grace , and pardon and right to life eternal ; and that they are in this state upon their Parents Consent and Heart-devoting them to God in Christ , before baptism , but baptism is the solemnizing and investiture , which openly coram Ecclesia delivereth them possession of their visible Church-state with a sealed pardon and gift of life : For it is not another , but the same promise and Covenant which is made to the faithful and their feed : And all Gods promises to the many Generations of them , in the second Commandment and many other Texts , cannot mean any such little blessings as consist with a state of damnation and the possession of the Devil . And all the ancient Churches in baptizing of Infants were of this mind ( whom I will not despise . ) And Abrahams case perswadeth me that the Children of Natural and Civil Parents ( truly their Owners ) have this right ( before they are baptized . ) But the former ( natural Parents ) have plainer evidence than the later ( which is a darker case . ) But as for them that think either that all Infants are saved , or all baptized Infants ( ●ure vel injuria ) though no Parent or Owner consent or dedicate them ( heartily , or openly ) to God , or though they are hypocrites and truly consent not for themselves or theirs , let them prove it if they can ; but I must say it is past my power . § . 17. I know the grand difficulty is , that then this Infant-Grace is lost in many that live to riper age . I have said so much of this in my Christian Directory that I will refer the considering Reader thither , only adding , 1. That far greater absurdities will follow the contrary opinion , and the greater are not to be chosen . I am loth again to name them . 2. That the universal Church ( as far as by any notice we can know ) did for many hundred years grant the conclusion and take it for no absurdity , but a certain truth ; yea much more , Austin and his followers themselves , thought more at age were truly justified and sanctified than were elected and did persevere : And some hold that not all that have the sanctifying spirit , but only certain confirmed Christians , have a certainty to persevere : And others hold , that as the spirit of Christ is promised to Believers , though men believe not without the spirit , so that measure of Grace which causeth men only to believe , as antecedent to that promised spirit ( of Power , Love and a sound mind ) is but such as may be lost , as Adams was ; and that it is the spirit following it ( as the rooted habit ) which cannot be lost : And others come yet lower , and say that the Grace which giveth faith it self cannot be lost ( because such have the promise of the spirit ; ) but yet the grace which only enableth men to Repent and Believe ( called sufficient ) may be lost before it produce the Act : Accordingly some think of Infant-Grace : The last sort think that they have real pardon of original sin and right to life , and have real Grace ; but being Infants , that grace is but such as will enable them to believe if they come to age , and not infallibly cause it , and that this may be lost : And so I might run over the opinions of the rest . And among all these the judgement of Davenant , Ward , &c. of the loss of an Infant-state of Grace , as by them opened is not so hard , as I think the contrary way will infer : And it seems by Art. 1. c. 17. that the Synod of Dort was of their mind . § . 18. Our darkness about the future state of Infants Souls , hath occasioned some diversity of thoughts about their present state . Indeed they will neither in Heaven or Hell have any work for Conscience in the review of any former actions , good or evil : And it seemeth by Nazianzene before cited ( Orat. 40. ) that some Ancients thought as most Papists do , that unbaptized Infants have neither the joys of Heaven , nor any punishment but the loss of these : But what state then to place them in they know not : To think that they shall remain in a meer potentiality of understanding , and shall know no more than they did here , is to equal them with bruits , and to encourage the Socinians who say the like of the separated souls of the adult : And if they can allow understanding to those that died baptized , why not to the rest ? And if they understand , they must have grief or pleasure : But who can know more than God revealeth ? § . 19. In sum ; 1. That God would have Parents devote their Children to him , and enter them according to their capacity in his Covenant ( as I have elsewhere proved ) is a great truth , not to be forsaken . 2. And also that he accepteth into his Covenant all that are faithfully thus devoted to him , and is peculiarly their God , and such Children are holy . 3. That they are certainly members according to an Infant capacity of the visible Church as they are of all Kingdoms under Heaven : These are all clear and great truths . 4. And that there is far more hope of their salvation than of those without . 5. And I think the Covenant maketh their Salvation certain if they so die . 6. And it seemeth to me that the investiture and solemnization of their Covenant with Christ , should be made in Infancie , from Matth. 28.19 , 20. and the exposition of the universal Church . 7. But if any should think with Tertullian and Nazianzene that the time of investiture and solemnization is partly left to prudence , and may be delayed in case of health , yea or should think that Infants are not to be solemnly invested by baptism , but only the adult , so they confess Infants relation to God , his Covenant and Church ; I would differ from such men with love and peace , and mutual toleration and communion . CHAP. I. The Occasion of this Writing . § . 1. AS I was by great and long importunity unwillingly engaged at first to meddle publickly in the Controversie of Infant Baptism with Mr. Tombes , so I then resolved to meddle no more with it , unless I found that necessity made it an apparent duty . § . 2. Accordingly when Mr. Tombes had printed the last private papers which past between him and me , without my consent , I never answered his reply to this day ; not striving to have the last word , and supposing that the studious impartial Reader , would find no need of a rejoynder : For to me his Reply seemed so empty and next nothing , that I thought it unnecessary to say any more . § . 3. But it is now grown the custom among Papists and Sectaries and almost all the wranglers that trouble the world , to scribble somewhat sense or nonsense against that truth which they have not wit , or will , or humility enough to learn , and then say to those that would make them wiser , you are answered ; and it goeth for a victory to any foolery , if they can but say , such a one that hath written against you is unanswered : As if we dealt on such terms with the world in writing , as that he that speaketh last , ( that is , that liveth longest ) must be supposed to be in the right . Or as if we knew not when we write against the grossest heresie or error , that as many words may be said or written for it as against it ! § . 4. And O what pity is it that with the vulgar sort of well-meaning people , number goeth for weight , and he seemeth to be in the right to them , who is nearest them and hath best opportunity to talk to them a few smooth deceitful words for his opinion , and to belie and vilifie those that are against him ! Not but that there are great fundamental Truths which manifest themselves , which I hope these honest souls would not be drawn from by an Angel from Heaven : But verily no true Charity can be so blind as to deny it , that in lower controverted points , the knowledge of the vulgar Religious people is so low , that he that is lower than an Angel , or than a well-studied Divine , or than a man of sober solid reason , may deceive them ( having first been himself deceived ) if he can but speak zealously , and reproach others impudently , by the spirit described and exorcised in Jam. 3. at large . § . 5. And I crave thy pity , Reader , to my self and such as I , that our Time and Employment is so much at the will and mercy of such a sort of wrangling men . That if I have it in my desire to do Gods Church service upon some greater and more needful subject , yet it is in the power of the Devil to stir up the corruption of honest well-meaning Christians , to put a necessity on me to do some poor inconsiderable works , and leave undone the greater and more excellent . § . 6. For circumstances may make it a mans duty to do that as presently necessary , which within a few years will be of no signification , but die with the interests and quarrels of the age . § . 7. It hath pleased the Lord , who did let loose the Serpent upon Adam in Paradise , to exercise his Church in almost all ages with temptations from two sorts that seem much contrary , but are nearer in disposition and principles than they well understand themselves , I mean Church-Tyrants and Church-Dividers ; And though I ( and most others of my quality ) have suffered incomparably more by the former , yet it is not a little that I have suffered by the later : And especially that by their slanderous and clamorous unquiet importunity , they will not give me leave to live by them in peace , nor to go on in better work while I meddle not with them . I could not obtain that leave from Mr. Tombs ; And now Mr. D. hath been pleased to open the mouths of so many of his partakers against me , as maketh wise men tell me that to be silent will be to be scandalously guilty of their sin . And do we live upon these terms , that any Railer can call us off from our better services when ever He and Satan please ? § . 8. But my purpose is to meddle with them but this once : And if after this these crying Children will bawl and wrangle and foul the house , and think that I am made for no better work than either to rock the Cradle or to make them clean , I will let them cry and take their course , and will no more believe that their humours are the masters of my time . § . 9. By three or four arguments ( of his making ) it hath pleased one Major Danvers a Souldier to call me to this task . 1. By heaping up a Catalogue of Accusations against my Doctrine in my Christian Directory . 2. By reproaching me for not answering Mr. Tombes . 3. By proclaiming me to the world a slanderer who owe the Anabaptists satisfaction , for saying that many of them were Baptized naked . 4. By perverse citations of my later Writings as if they had been serviceable to his cause . 5. By his injury to poor souls and the Churches peace , by his ignorant though confident opposition to the truth , and writing a Volume of he knoweth not what . § . 10. And to add to my invitation , it is become of late a common saying among the Anabaptists , that I am turned to their opinion or very near it , but have not humility to retract my former error , and openly acknowledge what I hold . § . 11. The occasion of this is , 1. Because I have so many years forborn to answer Mr. Tombes his last . 2. Because I seek peace with them , and speak for it upon all occasions , and seek to abate other mens over-great opposition to them . 3. Because upon all occasions I press the consideration and improvement of our Baptism , taking it for the summ and Character of our Christianity , and the true description of Conversion , and the essential mark of Grace , and the qualification of Catholick Church-members , and the bond of all our Christian duty : As if none but Anabaptists could think thus ? § . 12. When I first read Major Danvers Book , I thought such a Fardle could not be so regarded as to need an Answer ; But when his Bookseller came to know of me what I had against it , as from him ; and when I heard how many thousands of them were Printed , I rather chose to imitate him that had compassion on a headless multitude , than him that said , si populus vult decipi , decipiatur . And they that will not let me rest , must bear some of the fruits of my disquietment . CHAP. II. More of my Judgement of the Anabaptists and their Cause , with a motion to them for peace . § . 1. I Confess that in my Book against Mr. Tombes I wrote several pages enigmatically of the offensive scandals of the Anabaptists : And they that now read them when the occasion is forgotten or unknown , will either not understand them , or think them too sharp . But in all military Controversies , no man is so meet a Judge as he that is on the ground . § . 2. I am almost ready to condemn my self for that and many other things past when I forget the occasion of them and the state that we were in : But I will not deny that at that time my heart felt more than I exprest , 1. When I heard Anabaptistry obtruded on the religious people , as a great and needful part of their integrity : 2. And when they that abhorred to hear of old scandals were busily making more and greater : 3. When I saw what was done against the Parliament , by them that professed to be their servants , and that the Anabaptists and their Associates were the forwardest in the work : 4. And what was done against the King , when they had thrust out the Parliament ; 5. And what was done in the wars against Scotland ; 6. And what orders past for sequestring all such as my self that were not for their Engagement or Keeping their days of fasting and thanksgiving in causes of blood : 7. And when I saw these executed on many excellent men that were Masters of Colledges in the Universities , and useful Ministers in the Country : 8. And when I saw what that called the Little Parliament was and did , and how it was put to the Vote whether all the Parish Ministers of England should be put out at once ? and carried against them but by a few : And that the Anabaptists were of the forwardest in all this work : 9. And after when I saw how many of them turned Ranters , and read my self some of their Letters , full of horrid Oathes and Blasphemies ; All these things made me think that they were not friends to the Churches welfare , and this was not the way of holiness or peace . § . 3. All this while I desired to have lived by them in peace and quietness , but I could not obtain it : Mr. Tombes thought that I stood in the way of his successes , even when I medled not with them . And therefore I must be either converted to them or conquered , that the triumph might promote their ends . And when that quarrel was over I was glad , and purposed to meddle with them no more . § . 4. One of the greatest things that offended me , was that ( even in the Parishes where there were the ablest faithful laborious Ministers , ) they laboured to gather separated Churches , upon the account of their opinion ; And when they had gathered them , they were militant Churches : Presently that Town was in a war ; and the meetings employed for the extolling of their opinions , and vilifying the Ministers and Churches that were against them , and making them odious or contemptible to their followers : which could not be the work of God. § . 5. I dare challenge any man to make it good , that ever I fought to persecute any Anabaptists , or stirred up others to persecute them for their judgements : I know not that ever I did any of them any harm , except by not being of their minds , or contradicting them . But though my sufferings by them were nothing , ( that honour being assumed by another party ) yet they have not carried it so to me : But have convinced me that were they uppermost they would then have had too little tenderness for those that hindred their successes : Even some of Mr. Tombes his flock , my neighbours and familiar friends , I think , sought my life or ruine when I meddled not with them . When Sir George Booth had done what was done in Cheshire , I wrote a Letter to Major Beak at Coventry , and the Messenger telling them at Bewdley that he had a Letter from me , some of them made themselves Souldiers , and in arms way-laid the messenger , assaulted him , and took his Letters , and though they found not what I suppose they expected , yet finding in it but a great mans name , who then much ruled publick affairs , they sent it up to the Council to him , who summoned Major Beak to London to answer it , who had never seen it and knew nothing of it : And though he so scaped , I was loudly threatned ; but General Monks approach out of Scotland stayed the execution of their displeasure . Thus did my familiar Friends unprovoked ( some of them yet alive ) . § . 6. Indeed my judgement was and is , that the point of Infant Baptism hath its considerable difficulties , which may occasion wise and good men to doubt , or to be mistaken in it . And many of the Roman party have taken it to be proveable only by the tradition and judgement of the Church : And Mr. Tombes hath publickly intimated as if one of our most Learned and Entire publick Professors of Theologie in one of our Universities , had declared himself of the same mind , viz. that it is not to be proved by Scripture , ( Mr. Danvers hath also made advantage of this testimony ) , ( Though of late Scripture certain proof is found ( in the new Rubrick of the Liturgie ) for a great deal more . ) I am not of that mind , that it is not proveable by Scripture . I think I have proved it : but not by evidence so clear , as every good man can perceive . § . 7. Therefore I never took the point of it to have such weight , as that all that differed from me in it , must be denied either Love , Liberty or Communion : If I know my own heart I do as heartily love a sober godly man that is against Infant baptism , as I do such men that differ from me in other such Controversies ; and much better than one of my own judgement , who hath less piety and sobriety . And I make no doubt but there are among us very many such , even sober and religious men , as there be among other parties . § . 8. Nor do I think that there is so much malignity in the bare opinion which denieth Infant Baptism , as that all the Anabaptists miscarriages should arise from the nature of that opinion . But I am past doubt that they arise from the diseased minds of many that hold it . When injudicious persons lay hold upon an opinion which is not common , their singularity kindleth a proud selfish zeal , and they take that opinion as more peculiarly their own , than the common Articles which all Christians hold : And therefore they grow fond of it , and are puft up thereby with a conceit of their extraordinary knowledge : And then they seem to themselves more religious than others , and greater friends to the truth : And so Pride and Ignorance engage them in singularity and separation : And thus they would do , were it any other opinion , which they thought as highly of as this : So that it is not an Anabaptist as such , but the proud Church-divider , or Separatist that I am most offended at . § . 9. I know that in the Ancient Churches men were left at liberty , both when they would be baptized themselves , and when their Children should be baptized : And though Infant-baptism was without any known original , since the Apostles , yet it was not a forced thing . § . 10. And were it in my power it should be so still : I would not deny Christian Love , nor Church-Communion , nor publick encouragements , to any pious peaceable man for being an Anabaptist : If he would not separate for it from the Churches , if he would live peaceably with me , I would live peaceably with him , and should be loth to be behind with him in love and peace . § . 11. It is not ( I say ) Anabaptistry , Independency , nor any such opinion which I impute our calamities to directly : But it is ( next to Church Tyranny ) the spirit of separation ; I mean , when men cannot so far differ in judgement from others , but a perverse zeal for their opinion as some excellent truth of God , doth instigate them to run away from those that are against it , as if they were the enemies of the truth and God , and unworthy of the Communion of such as they : which is nothing but a conjunction of Pride , Ignorance and Vncharitableness ( or Malice . ) § . 12. I have told these men that when they have spoken never so sharply against Persecutors , it is apparent that there is much of the same spirit in themselves : One saith , of Dissenters , Away with such unworthy persons out of the Ministry or out of the Country : and the other saith , Away with such unworthy persons from your Communion : And both contrary to Christs sheep-mark which is Love , and both tend to make their Brethren seem unlovely : And whom they serve by this means , whether the Prince of Love , or the Prince of Malignity , it 's pity but they knew ; or at least would consider of it , instead of being angry with us when we tell them of it . § . 13. I am not therefore half so zealous to turn men from the opinion of Anabaptistry , as I am to perswade both them and others , that it is their duty to live together with mutual forbearance , in Love and Church-Communion notwithstanding such differences : For which they may see more reasons given by one that once was of their mind and way ( Mr. William Allen in his Retractation of Separation , * and His Perswasive to Vnity ) than any of them can soundly refel , though they may too easily reject them . § . 14. I am perswaded that the formal Ministers , and people , who make little more use of Baptism , than to give it to Infants , and to receive it in Infancy , have been the greatest occasion of Anabaptistry among us : when the people see that all being Baptized in Infancy , many afterwards live all their days , and never understand what Baptism is , and few ever solemnly and distinctly own and renew that Covenant when they come to age , ( unless coming to Church and receiving the Lords Supper with as little understanding , be a renewing it , ) this tempteth serious people that understand not the matter well themselves , to think that Infant-baptism doth but pollute the Churches , by letting in those who know not what they do , and after prove prophane or Infidels : And they think that it is the only way to reformation to stay till they are ready to devote themselves understandingly to God. But this is their mistake : For , 1. If it were deferred till ripeness of age , one part would neglect it and continue Infidels ; and another part would do all formally , as we see they do now at the other Sacrament , where the same Covenant is to be renewed . 2. There is a better remedy . § . 15. For we hold that all that are Baptized in Infancy should as understandingly , and as seriously and ( if it may be conveniently ) as solemnly , own and make that Covenant with God when they come to age , as if they had never been baptized ; ( if not more , as being more obliged . ) The reasons of this I have given long ago at large , in a Treatise of Confirmation , written when we had hope of setting up this Course , under the name of Confirmation , which some of us practised in our Assemblies not without success . To be seriously devoted to God by our Parents first , and to be brought at age as seriously to devote our selves to him , as any Anabaptist can do , is a much liklier way to fill the Church with serious Christians , than to leave all men without the sense of an early Infant obligation . § . 16. I am as fully perswaded that Infants Church-membership and Baptism is according to Gods will , as ever I was , when I was most engaged in the Controversie : And I am perswaded that these Papers of mine to Mr. Tombes , are so unsatisfactorily answered as is worse than no Answer , and sheweth how little is to be said . § . 17. Though the Act of Baptizing be a duty , and so necessary necessitate praecepti , yet Protestants hold that it is not so necessary necessitate medii , but that in some cases those that are unbaptized may be saved : As in case the Child die before it can be done , or in case the absence or delay of the Baptizer be the cause : It is true-consenting to his Covenant ( for our selves and those that we have power to consent and accept it for ) which Christ hath made necessary to salvation ; and if he should damn a true Consenter , he should damn one that hath the Love of God , and one to whom he promiseth salvation , John 3.16 , 18. § . 18. It is utterly incongruous to the rest of the Law of Grace , which is spiritual , and to Christs alterations , who took down the Law of burdensom Ceremonies ; to think that he should lay so great a stress upon the very outward washing , as that he would damn true Believers that Love God , for want of it : when he hath done so much to convince the world , that God seeketh such to worship him as will do it in spirit and truth , and that Circumcision or Uncircumcision is nothing , but Faith that worketh by Love : And if Penitent Loving Believers shall not be saved , Gods promises give us no assurance or security . § . 19. When the Apostle , Ephes . 4.4 , 5. putteth [ one Baptism ] among the necessaries of Church-Concord , by Baptism is meant , our solemn devoting our selves ( and ours under that trust ) to Christ in the Baptismal Covenant ; which can mean no more but that as there are three things ( on our part ) in Baptism , 1. Heart-consent , ● . Profession of that consent , 3. The Reception of washing as the professing symbol : So , 1. The heart-consent is necessary to our membership of the Church as invisible , that is , to our union with Christ and our salvation ; 2. The Profession of Consent as there is opportunity is necessary , both to prove the sincerity of Consent it self , and to other mens notice of it , and so to our membership of the Church as visible : 3. And our Professing it by being Baptized is necessary to the regular and orderly manner of our Profession : And so far to our concord . § . 20. And he that knoweth Baptism to be hic et nunc his duty and yet will not receive it , sheweth his unsoundness by his disobedience . § . 21. As Baptism is made our great duty under that name , so Profession or Confession of Christ , as such , is oft mentioned as necessary , even to salvation , Rom. 10.9 , 10. 1 Joh. 4.2.3.15 . Mat. 10.32 . Phil. 2.11 . 2 John 7. And Baptism being our Open confessing and Owning Christ by a solemn Vow and Covenant , it is principally as such that it is necessary to salvation , yea and to a perfect membership of the visible Church . § . 22. Therefore if any man that in a desart or dry Countrey could have no water , or that lived where there is no Minister , should openly before all the people devote himself to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , according to the Baptismal Covenant , and solemnly profess himself a Christian , that man were a true member of the visible Church , though defective as to the mode of entrance , and were to be numbered with Christians : And Constantine and many another were called Christians long before they were baptized . And it were injurious to the Rationality and spirituality of Christs Covenant , to feign him to be so ceremonious , as to reject a sound professing believer for want of water . § . 23. Though Augustine be called durus pater Infantum , and be supposed for some passages by many Papists and others to damn all unbaptized persons save Martyrs , yet these following words among others , in his later times in his deliberate disputes against the Donatists , fully shew his contrary judgement ( which yet I believe the Interest of his cause against the Donatists was a help to in this point ) And remember that he confirmeth it in his Retractations , by retracting only the instance of the thief on the cross , as uncertain whether he was baptized or not . § . 24. Aug de baptis . cont . Donat. li. 4. c. 29. [ Quod etiam atque etiam considerans invenio , non tantum Passionem pro nomine Christi , id quod ex Baptismo deerat posse supplere ; sed etiam Fidem conversionemque Cordis , si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest — Et Cap. 24. Cum Ministerium baptismi non contemptus religionis sed articulus necessitatis excludit : & baptismus quidem potest inesse ubi conversio cordis defuerit : Conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo ; sed contempto non potest : neque enim ullo modo dicenda est conversio cordis ad Deum , cum Dei sacramentum contemnitur . Conversion then will save without baptism , when baptism is not contemned : It is the contempt that destroyeth , and that as it proveth men unconverted . And this he professeth to be his judgement after long and great consideration . § . 25. Baptism is to Christianity much like what Ordination is to the sacred Ministry , and what solemn Matrimony is to Marriage . It is necessary as a Duty , and as a Means to our ordinary and regular admittance to the Communion of the Church . But as in case there were no Ordainer to be had , in a far Countrey in America , no doubt but a qualified person might become a Pastor , rather than God should have no Church , nor be solemnly worshipped ; And as in case there could be no regular solemnization of Marriage ( as in such a wilderness ) a published consent may tie the knot ; so in case there could be no Baptizing , a solemn Profession and Covenanting would serve to Gods acceptance , and to a right to the Christian name . § . 26. I only leave it to Christian Charity and wisdom to consider how far some mens Education , natural weakness of judgement , and other impediments of information , may make their error against Infant Baptism , to participate of such a Necessity : The case hath its difficulties : Papists and Protestants confess it , as to Scripture evidence : Weak men cannot know all things : And even considerable heads , that have heard and thought of much against it , which they cannot answer , may grow very confident that they are in the right , and after by that prejudice may become uncapable of what should satisfie them : Abundance of the sons of the Church that talk most against them , give such weak reasons for Infant Baptism , and are so unable to confute an Anabaptist , as sheweth , that it is not More knowledge , but somewhat else more inclining them to the truth therein , that keepeth them right . § . 27. If the case were , whether the Lords Supper might be Administred with Beer , or Milk , where there is no Wine ? Or whether Baptism might be Administred by Milk or Wine , where there is no water ? suppose the affirming party were certainly in the right ; yet if the contrary minded should say , I own Christs Sacrament , and solemnly profess my consent to his Covenant ; and I would participate as you do , but that I take it to be a sin , and with all the means that I can use , in conference , reading , meditation , prayer , my judgement is not changed , ] I should not break such communion with such a man , as he were capable and willing to hold with the Church . And how near some Anabaptists case is to this , I leave to consideration . § . 28. But making no question but many of them are far better men than I , and knowing my self lyable to error , and knowing how much Christ in his promises layeth upon sincerity of Faith and Love more than upon ceremony ; and having endeavoured to learn what this meaneth , I will have mercy and not sacrifice ; As I am far more offended at their Schism , or separation from Communion with our Churches , than at their opinion , so I will here lay down those terms on which I am perswaded good and sober men will be willing on both sides to agree and hold communion : Or on which I am sure I would gladly live in brotherly love and communion with them my self . § . 29. Let the Anabaptists consent to and profess as followeth or to this sense . [ Though we judge Infant Baptism dissonant from Christs instituted order , yet finding that God hath made many promises to the seed of the faithful above others , and that Christ expressed his readiness to receive little children when they were brought to him for his blessing , and knowing that all Christian Parents should earnestly desire that their children may be the children of God through Christ , and should devote them to him , as far as is in their power , and knowing that there are difficulties about the extent of this power , and Christs promises ; we do here solemnly profess , that we thankfully desire all those mercies for this child which God hath promised to such in his word ; and that we heartily offer , devote and dedicate this child to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , as far as he hath given us power to do it , beseeching him accordingly to accept him : And we promise faithfully to endeavour to educate him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord , and as we are able to perswade him when he is capable , to believe in Christ , and solemnly devote himself to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost in Baptism . ] Let this much be done in the Church or so openly as may satisfie the Church , that they are not despisers of Gods mercies , nor their childrens souls . Much more would it tend to our quietness and concord , if those that profess that they cannot satisfie their consciences in their Infant Baptism , would but do as the Liturgie doth by those whose Baptism is uncertain , [ If thou be not Baptized , I Baptize thee , ] and so would say , [ Being uncertain whether my Infant Baptism be valid , If it be not I now receive that which is ] And when they have satisfied their consciences , would live quietly in the Love and communion of the Church ! Who would not receive them , though we approve not of their way ? § . 30. And were it in my power as a Pastor of the Church , I would give satisfaction by such an answerable profession as this . [ Though it be our judgement that Infants have ever been members of Gods visible Church , since he had a Church and there were Infants in the world , and do believe that Christ hath signified in the Gospel that it is his gracious will that they should still be so ; And that he that commanded , Mat. 28.19 . [ Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them ] would have his Ministers endeavour accordingly to do it , and hath hereby made Baptism the regular orderly way of solemn entrance into a visible Church state ; and therefore we devote this child to God in the Baptismal Covenant : Yet we do also hold , that when he cometh to age , it will be his duty as seriously and devoutly to make this Covenant with God understandingly himself , and to dedicate himself to God the Father , Son and Holy Ghost , as those must do that never were Baptized in Infancie : And we promise to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity , to instruct and perswade him so to do , hoping that this his early Baptismal dedication , and obligation to God will rather much prepare him for it , than hinder it . § . 31. Me thinks these Professions should put off the chief matter of offence and exception against each other , as to the ill consequents of our opinions ? And if sober good men would by such a mutual approach , be the more disposed to live together in love and holy peace , how easily should I bear the scorns of those Formalists that will reproach me for so much as motioning [ a Peace with the Anabaptists , even in the same Communion ! ] Who by making it a reproach will but perswade me , that such as they are less worthy of Christian Communion than sober , pious , and peaceable Anabaptists . § . 32. And if with the partial sort of themselves such motions of Peace be turned into matter of contempt , and they proceed in their clamours and reviling of me , as an enemy of the truth , for being against their way , I shall account it no wonder nor matter of much provocation , finding in all Sects as well as theirs , that the injudicious sort are apt to be abusively censorious , and the more mens Pride , Ignorance and uncharitableness remain , the more they will swell into self-conceit , and trouble the Church with a mistaking wrangling hurtful sort of zeal . § . 33. And as I must needs believe as ill of some sort of Zeal as St. James hath spoken of it , Jam. 3. and experience hath too long told the world of it ; yet I take it for truly amiable in men , that they have a love and Zeal for Truth in general , and a hatred to that which they think to be against it ; and that their bitterness against the truth and me , is upon a supposition that both are against the truth and God ; for this beareth them witness that they have a zeal of God , though it be not according to Knowledge ; and if they knew truth indeed , they would be zealous for it . § . 34. I conclude with this notice to the contrary minded , that the evidence for Infants Church-membership seemeth to me so clear , both in nature and in Scripture , that I bid them despair of ever perswading me against it : But if they will have any hope of changing my judgement , it must be by confessing the visible Church-membership of Infants , and proving that yet they are not to be baptized , and that Baptism was appointed for initiating none but adult converts , and not to be the common entrance into the Church : which yet I think they can never do , while the plain Law of Christ Mat. 29.19 . and the exposition of the universal Church , doth stand on record to confute such an opinion ! But here they have more room for a dispute . § . 35. But ( though I expect to be censured for it ) I will say once ( because truth is truth ) that though Rebaptizing and Reordaining are justly both condemned by the ancient Churches , and pronounced alike ridiculous by Gregory Mag. Lib. 2. Ep. Indict . 11. c. 46. and many others ; yet were men Rebaptized but for Certainty to themselves or to the Church , and to quiet their consciences , and on such terms as in my Christian Directory I have shewed that a seeming Reordination might in some cases be tolerated , and would not wrong Infants , nor make it an occasion of division or alienation ; I know not by any Scripture or reason that such Rebaptizing is so heinous a sin , as should warrant us to contemn our brethren : No though it were as faulty as the oft commemorative baptizing used by the Abassines . CHAP. III. A General View of Mr. Danvers book . § . 1. MR. Danvers book is entitled a Treatise of Baptism , in which he giveth us the History of Infant and Adult Baptism out of Antiquity , as making it appear that Infant Baptism was not practised for 300 years ( in his second edit . it is [ near 300. ) And in his Append . ed. 2. [ I cannot find that it was practised upon any till the fourth Century : ] And he giveth us a Catalogue of witnesses against it . By which those that hold their Religion on the belief of such mens words , will conclude that all this is true , and that Infant Baptism is a Novelty , and those that are against it do go the old and Catholick way . § . 2. Having perused his testimonies on both sides , I am humbled and ashamed for the dulness of my heart , that doth not with floods of compassionate tears lament the pittiful condition of the seduced , that must be thus deceived in the dark ; and of the Churches of Christ that must be thus assaulted , and shaken , and distracted , by such inhumane horrid means : The book being composed , in that part of history which the stress of the cause lyeth on , of such UNTRUTHS in fact and history , as I profess it one of my greatest difficulties to know how to call them . Should I say , that they are so notorious and shameless , as that ( I say not only a Papist , ) but any sober Turk or Pagan should blush to have been guilty but of some page or line● of them , and much more a man of any tenderness of conscience , the Readers would think that the language were harsh , were it never so true , and some would say , Let us have soft words and hard arguments ] . And should I not tell the Reader the truth of the case , I might help to betray him into too much fearlesness of his bait and snare , and I doubt I may be guilty of untruth by concealing the quality of his untruths : And it is not matter of Argument , but fact that I am speaking of . § . 3. But it pleaseth that God whose counsels are unsearchable , as to permit five parts of the Earth to remain yet strangers unto Christ , so to permit his Church to be so tryed and distracted between Church Tyranny , and dividing separations , Sects and parties , as that in many ages it hath not been easie to know which of them was the more pernicious . § . 4. And it must grieve every conscionable and discerning lover of Truth and Peace , to observe how these two Church-disturbing parties , do by their extremities of opposition , increase as well as exasperate each other : As the Ithacian Prelates did by the Priscillianists , and the Priscillianists by them . The Pride , covetousness , dead formality , and cruel violence of Clergie Tyrants maketh the poor Sectaries think that they must go so far from them , till they have lost themselves and know not where they are ; and as Mr. Danvers musters up a catalogue of my sayings in his mode and dress , which seem ugly to the poor man that thinks he seeth Antichristianity in such Gospel and natural truths which he understandeth not , ( Like that melancholy person , who thinks she seeth Spiders upon every one that comes near her , and they must brush them off before she can converse with them , though she be caetera sana ) ; so those on the other extream think them so fanatick , and almost mad , that they are apt to suspect every word almost that they say , of madness , and sometimes thereby injure the truths of the Gospel , and soberer people , that partake not of their guilt , and so say of such as agree with them but in aliquo tertio , They are all alike . § . 5. This was the main cause which made St Martin separate from his neighbour Bishops , and deny communion with them to the death : Because their persecution of the Priscillianists had so animated the looser sort against strict Religious people , that they had brought men under the suspicion of Priscillianism , , if they did but fast , and pray , and read and talk of the Scripture . It 's easie to see of late who they are that have done the like . § . 6. When this sort of men see the weakness of the Sectaries , and the bold-faced falshood which such as Mr. Danvers obtrude on the world , and hear them furiously revile what they understand not , it maketh them think that they are fitter for Bedlam than for humane societie : And their consciences justifie them for all the cruelties that they use against either them , or more innocent persons , whom in their ignorance and uncharitableness they number with them . § . 7. And on the like account when they read and hear their erroneous Doctrines , and hear their incongruous words in prayer , they think they can never be too strict in shackling them and all others in prescribed forms : And nothing quieteth their Consciences in all this so much , as the undeniable errors , and follies and miscarriages of those that thus provoke them . § . 8. But in this the Church in Augustines days did not think that way the wisest cure : when he saith [ Afferat , ut fieri solet , aliquam precem in qua loquatur contra regulam fidei ( multi quippe irruunt in preces non solum ab imperitis loquacibus , sed etiam ab haereticis compositas , & per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere , utuntur iis , arbitrantes quod bonae sint : ) Nec tamen quod in eis perversum est evacuat illa quae ibi recta sunt ; sed ab eis potius evacuatur ] Aug. de bapt . cont . Donat. ( as I remember about lib. 5. c. 11. ) O truly charitable and peaceable Doctrine ! And he that will separate from other for every difference ( or real error ) in Doctrine or Prayers , shall have enow to separate from him . § . 9. I know nothing that so much multiplieth Sectaries as the notorious miscarriages of Church-Tyrants that oppose them : And I know nothing , next carnal interest it self , that so much multiplieth and confirmeth Papists and Church-Tyrants , as the madness of the Sectaries· The wildeness , but especially the diversity of their opinions , hath done more to increase the number of Papists among us than any thing that ever the Papists themselves could otherwise say for their cause : For people see so many giddy with turning round , and see so many Sects among us , that they are confounded , and know not which to be of ; but they must lay hold of somewhat that is more stable , or be wheel-sick . § . 10. O what a confirmation is it to a Papist to find such a one as Mr. Danvers calling Gods Truths and Ordinances Antichristian ! Yea , our very Baptismal Covenant and dedication to Christ is Antichristian , and the chief Fathers and Martyrs of the Church are Antichristian ! ( no wonder if I be so . ) And I doubt almost all the Church of Christ for 900 years , at least in this mans reckoning . And what will the Papists desire more ? With what scorn will they deride such men ? Wo be to him by whom offence cometh . The chief Quakers are charged by Mr. Faldo and others ( even some of their own name ) of denying the person and office of Christ himself : It is worth the enquiring whether they reject him not as Antichrist , and call not Christianity by the name of Antichristianity ? CHAP. IV. Of Mr. Danvers's his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism . § . 1. WHen he hath told you , that In his small search ( shamefully small ) he cannot find there is any authentick testimony that it was practised on any till the fourth Century ; he in the next words saith that it is granted that Tertullian spake against it in Africa , which is clear evidence that some had been speaking for it in that corner of the world : ] This is no contradiction with him : And did they only speak for it and not practise it ? Speak once like a man : And was not that till the fourth Century ? § . 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns : The first of the Baptism of the Adult : And what Christian ever denied this ? And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it ? The second is of the Instituting and asserting of Infant-Baptism ; of which more anon . The third is of his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism . And the first of these mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century . By which he seemeth to confess that till the third Century he hath no witness against it . But I have said so much elsewhere and others more , to prove , 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism de facto was then in use ; 2. That he only telleth his opinion of the point of convenience , but concludeth not against Infant-Baptism as unlawful ; 3. That it is most probable he speaketh of the Infants of Heathens ; 4. That he speaketh from that strict singularity which made him plead also for the Montanists Fanaticism , and against second marriages , and for his inordinate fastings , &c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Hereticks ( though I think him a learned Godly man. ) And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptism I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not against all Infant-Baptism , but for it among Christians . § . 3. His next and great Witness is the Donatists together . This is something , were it true : but it is such a kind of falshood as I must not name in its due epithets , lest you think me over-sharp . § . 4. His words are [ Donatus a learned man in Africa taught that they should baptize no Children but only that believed and desired it . ] Answ . Utterly false : And how doth he prove it ? By Sebast . Frank. whom I will not search to see whether he say so or not . Reader , if the question be , what was done , said or held by thousands of men twelve hundred years ago , and the Writings of them and their Adversaries were extant , and the Histories written of them in that and the next Ages , would you have a man pass by all proof from these , and tell you what a fellow of his own opinion saith eleven hundred years after ? He brings us with great ostentation the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrologie and such like Histories of a few years old , of fellows that knew little more than as he doth , what their Party or Companions told them , or what they ignorantly gathered from such Books as are yet to be seen by us as well as by them . If I should dispute what Augustine held , would Mr. D. fetch his proofs from the writings of James Nailor , or George Fox , or Isaac Pennington , yea or Mr. Tombes to prove his assertions , while Augustines works are at hand to be seen ? § . 5. So next he saith [ that the followers of Donatus were all one with the Anabaptists , denying Baptism to Children , admitting the Believers only thereto who desired the same ] And he 〈◊〉 one called Twisk . Ans● ▪ ●tterly false ; They held no such thing . § . 6. His next proof is indeed from an unquestionable witness ; he saith [ Augustines third and fourth Books against the Donatists do demonstrate that they denied Infant-Baptism , wherein he manageth the argument for Infant-Baptism against them , with great zeal , enforcing it by several arguments , but especially from Apostolical Tradition , and cursing with great bitterness they that should not embrace it . § . 7. Answ . Mr. Bagshaw is now quite over-done in the quality of untruths : Reader , either this man had seen and read the Books of Augustine mentioned by him , or he had not . If not , doth he use Gods Church and the souls of poor ignorant people with any tenderness of Conscience , sobriety or humanity , to talk at this rate of Books , that he never saw or read , which are so common among us to be seen ? If he understand not Latine , how unfit is he to give us the History of these antiquities ? And how audacious to talk thus of what he knoweth not ? If he understand it , what cruelty is it to the Church to venture on such untruths to save him the labour of opening and reading the books he talketh of ? But if he have read them , then I can scarce match him again among all the falsifiers that I know in the world ; I dare not be so uncharitable to him as to think that ever he read them . § . 8. The Books are seven that Augustine wrote of Baptism against the Donatists : And in them all I cannot find one syllable of intimation that ever the Donatists denied Infant-●●●●ism , but enough to the contrary that they 〈◊〉 : Nor do the third and fourth books mentioned by him meddle with it any more than the rest : There is not in the seven books nor in all the rest of Austins books against the Donatists , one word that I can find , of any such controversie with them at all : And for a man to say that in two books he manageth the arguments for Infant-Baptism against them with great zeal , &c. when there is not one word that supposeth them to deny it , blush Reader in compassion for such a man. § . 9. Re●der , the Donatists were a great party of men in Africa : They were Prelatical and for Ceremonies as the other Churches were : They differed from the rest on the account of the Personal succession of their Bishops . In a time of persecution they said ( truly or falsly was a great controversie ) that one of the Bishops delivered up the Church-books to the Persecutors , to be burnt , rather than die himself , when they demanded them ; And that the Catholick Bishops received successively their ordination from that man , and called them Traditores ; whereas the Bishop that all their Bishops had successively been ordained by , was one that had refused to deliver up the Church-books ; And consequently he was the right Bishop , and they that had their succession from him were true Bishops and Churches , and all the rest were no true Bishops or Churches ; and therefore that all their Baptism and Sacraments were nullities , and their Communion unlawful , and that all people were bound in Conscience as ever they would be saved to separate from the rest ( called Catholicks ) and to come to them and to be rebaptized . So that their Schism was much like the Papists , who confine the Church to their party , and condemn all others , save that the Papists ( ordinarily ) rebaptize not ( though they say some Monks have done it , as elsewhere I have cited . ) The Donatists were Episcopal ceremonious Separatists , that did it on the account of a purer Episcopal succession . Till their days the holy Doctors of the Church had almost all been against drawing the sword against Hereticks , even Augustin himself . But the greatness of their party and the proud conceit of their greater zeal and strictness than the Catholicks had , made them so furious that the Catholick Pastors could not live quietly by them . Insomuch that some of them wounded the Ministers in the streets , and some of them made a salt sharp water and spouted into Ministers eyes as they past the street , to put out their eyes ; till many such insolencies provoked Augustin to change his judgement of toleration , ( and especially the multitudes seduced by them , ) and the Bishops to crave the Emperors aid : The Emperor made Edicts for mulcts and banishment to those that persevered : This ( being a new way ) so exasperated the Donatists , that in very passion many of them ( yea Bishops ) murdered themselves to bring odium on the Catholicks , to make the people believe that the cruelty of the Catholicks compelled them to it : And this was the state of these two parties ; but not a word of difference about Infant-Baptism between them that ever I read in either part . § . 10. The Controversie between Austin and them he thus stateth : Lib. 1. c. 1 , 2. Si haberi foris potest , etiam dari cur non potest ? Baptism received out of the Catholick or true Church among Schismaticks is true baptism : and therefore baptism given without by Schismaticks is true baptism . Impie facere qui rebaptizare conantur orbis unitatem , & nos recte facere qui Dei Sacramenta improbare , nec in ipso schismate audemus : They do impiously that endeavor to rebaptize all the united Christian world , and we do rightly who dare not deny Gods Sacraments , no not in a Schism . ] For Augustin peaceably held the Donatists baptism to be true and valid though irregular and unlawfully given and taken , but the Donatists held all the Catholicks Ministry and baptism null . § . 11. Therefore he thus summeth up their differences , cap. 3. Duo sunt quae dicimus , & esse in Catholica Baptismum , & illic tantum recte accipi : Item alia duo dicimus , esse apud Donatistas baptismum ; non autem recte accipi : Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt , unam vero utrique dicimus . ] That is , [ Two things we say , that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church , and that there only it is rightly received : Also two things more we say , that there is Baptism with the Donatists ; but that with them it is not rightly received : of these sentences , three are only ours , and one is common to us both : ] Austin held it a sin , to be baptized among Schismaticks , ( to joyn with their Sect ) but not a nullity . § . 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches : And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them , yet hardly Salvation : And his argument ( though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations ) is worth the Separatists consideration : that baptism that destroyeth ( remitteth he calls it ) not sin , is not saving : that which is without love remitteth not sin : But Schismaticks , saith he , have not love : For , Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur : Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum ? Quis hoc dixerit ? Cum & origo & pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum . ] That is , None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren : Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism ? What man will say so ? Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren . ] But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred , when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren , and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with , and separate from them on that account . § . 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side : and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council . The plain truth is this : In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks , but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion : And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism : The baptism of these the Church took for null , and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized . Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this , and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them , stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism , but incorporated men into their corrupt societies : The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council , to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches , and rebaptize those that they baptized : Austin answereth all the Councils reasons , but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr , and no Heretick though mistaken . § . 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh , as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists , but moreover , he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism , as a medium in his arguing against them , Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth , in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant , and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized [ Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam & ore confiteri ad salutem , quod latro potuit : Quinetiam flendo & vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur , ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt ; & tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari . ] That is , [ Which all the * Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized , who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation : And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain . ] Thus he argueth against the Donatists , If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism , and no Christian will say that it is in vain , though they themselves believe not and confess not , then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it , or because it is received in our Churches . The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists , and the scope of this place sheweth , that he here pleaded universal consent , and by [ all the Church ] and [ no Christian ] includeth the Donatists . And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians , who though they denied original sin , durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism , but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace , though not for remitting sin . § . 15. And Austin next addeth [ Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat ( Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia , nec Conciliis institutum , sed semper retentum est , non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur ) tamen veraciter conjicere possumus , &c. ] That is , [ And if any one in this case ( of Infant-baptism ) ask for Divine authority ( Though that which the universal ( or whole ) Church doth hold , and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held , is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority ) yet we may truly conjecture , &c. ( and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision . ) § . 16. Here note , 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists , 2. Nor with any other Sect , but hold by all the Church , 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that [ that which all the whole Church holdeth , and did ever hold , not instituted by any Council , is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition , ] which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny . Who can imagine that Timothy , Titus , Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since , should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship , which they had not from the Apostles ? Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors ? 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this ( that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day , and not instituted by any Council : ) And were not Austin , the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing , than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them ? 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also . § . 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism , but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful . Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere , that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism , than any that change the form of baptizing ; so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice delivered down the form and words of baptism to us . § . 18. Afterward pag. 230. Ed. 2. Mr. Danvers cometh to Austin again , and saith that Vincentius Victor did oppose Austin in the point of Infant-baptism , citing August . li. 3. c. 14. de Anima . Answ . Not a word of truth : no such matter in that Chapter or the whole book . § . 19. Next he saith [ Cresconius did also oppose Austin in the point of Infants baptism , and did maintain — that there was no true baptism but that which administred after faith . Answ . Utterly false still . There was no such controversie between them . No wonder if he had miscited sentences that will thus go to falsifie whole Books , as speaking of that which they never meddle with ! Augustine having written against Petilian ( their best speaker , having of a Lawyer been made a Bishop ) Cresconius a Donatist Grammarian interposed for Petilian , and perswaded Austin to gentler thoughts of them ; but speaks not a word against Infant-baptism . § . 20. Nay , lib. 3. cap. 31. Austin tells us that they held it as well as the Catholicks : saith he , [ Circumcisionem certe praeputii in figura futuri baptismi Christi ab antiquis observatum esse , negare , ut arbitror , non audetis : That is , I suppose you dare not deny that Circumcision was observed by the ancients in figure of the Christian baptism . ] It was a granted thing . § . 21. And it was Cresconius words to Austin [ Vna Religio , eadem Sacramenta , nihil in Christiana observatione diversum : & adhuc adversus invicem laboramus ? Saith Austin , Quare ergo rebaptizas Christianum ? Ego non rebaptizo ; that is , [ We have all one Religion , the same Sacraments , there is nothing in our Christian observation divers ( saith Cresconius ) And yet do we strive against each other ? Why then dost thou rebaptize a Christian ( that differeth not from them ? ) I rebaptize no Christian , ( saith Austin . ) So that here was no disagreement in Sacraments or any Christian observance . Only as Austin saith lib. 7. de bapt . c. 2. the quarrel was that the Catholicks were charged to be Traditores quia ex traditoribus , the successors of sinners : Thus being wise and righteous overmuch did tear and almost ruine the Churches . § . 22. He addeth , pag. 223. Ed. 2. the saying of Osiander , Fuller , Bullinger , that the Donatists and the Anabaptists held the same opinions ? Answ . 1. In what ? In all things or some ? that is , in the point of Rebaptizing persons before baptized ( do you own that indeed ? ) But not as being against Infant-baptism . 2. So , many Prelatists have called the Puritans Donatists ; and abundance of Protestants say that the Papists succeed the Donatists in appropriating the Church to their party . Do not write next that they say the Papists are against Infant-baptism , lest you make your selves Antichristian also . § . 23. Reader , the Donatists were so great a party of men and had so great a number of Bishops , and so many wrote against them whose works are yet extant , and their cause had so many publick examinations , that I leave it to thee if thou have the brains of a man , to judge whether if they had been against Infant-baptism in a time when Austin said no Christian denied it , neither Optatus , nor Austin , nor any other of their most copious opposers would ever have charged them with such an opinion , nor any examiners , Councils or Historians of their ages ; even when the Catalogues of hereticks unhappily took in so many little matters as they did , and made hereticks some more and worse than they were ? And now if John Becold will say they were of his side , we must believe him . § . 24. His dealing with the Novatians is the same or worse : He feared not in the face of the Sun , to write that the Novatians opposed Infant-baptism , and numbreth them also with his party . When it is a falshood as much aggravated as these particulars import . 1. They were an honest and numerous people , and scattered almost all over the Empire ; tolerated till Innocents time in Rome , and long tolerated and much favoured by many Emperors and Patriarchs in Constantinople , because ( as Socrates saith ) they agreed in Doctrine with the Catholicks : And could they have denied Infant-baptism , and not be accused of it ? 2. They had many bitter enemies that would soon have cast this in their teeth . 3. Many Councils had to do with them , where multitudes had opportunity to accuse them . 4. They were an ancient Sect , arising even in Cyprians time , and long continued : And in so many generations it would have been known . 5. They are put in the Catalogues of many Heresiographers that are keen enough , and none of them ( that ever I found ) accuse them of any such thing : No not Epiphanius himself , who is most copious , and not very backward to accuse . And shall either John of Leyden or any of his party now in the end of the world perswade us , by slandering so many thousands of innocent men , that they were guilty ? And can Mr. Danvers now tell us that they held that which for a thousand years hath lain unknown ? § . 25. He citeth Socrates , l. 7. c. 9. that Innocent banished them out of Rome . Answ . Elsewhere indeed Socrates and many more say so : But doth that prove they were against Infant-baptism ? § . 26. Somewhat he would fain say at the second hand out of Albaspinaeus , Observ . 20. I hope he never read the book : Albaspinaeus there purposely decideth the Controversie , what the Novatian Heresie was , in several Chapters , and never mentioneth any such opinion or suspicion of them . The same doth that great Antiquary Jesuit Petavius ; ( and what these two men knew not of the Fathers and Church-history , few in the world knew , unless I may except Blondel and Vsher : ) In his notes on Epiphanius of the Novatians , he entreth on the same Controversie as Albaspinaeus did , and never mentioneth any such thing . § . 27. Next he tells us that Ecbertus and Emericus do assert that the Waldenses , the new Cathari , conform to the Doctrine and manners of the old , the Novatians . Answ . But did they say that the Novatians were against Infant-Baptism ? Why did you cite neither words , page nor Book ? And if they had , should two railing slanderous Papists near a thousand years after Novatian be taken for witnesses that he was against Infant-baptism , against all the History of the Church that concerneth them to the contrary ? Socrates himself ( an honest Historian ) and Sozomen also are ordinarily by the Papists accused as Novatians , because they speak fairly and impartially of them as honest men : ( and whether they were or not I know not , but by their own words conj●cture the contrary ) And they lived when and where the Novatians were best known : And yet tell us not a syllable of any such suspicion of them . § . 28. Next he saith , Perin saith that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians , driven out of Rome about Anno 400. Answ . It is very probable : Therefore the Waldenses were not against Infant-baptism . For it is certain the Novatians were not : And the same Perin saith the Waldenses were not . But if they had , would that prove that the Novatians were , seven hundred or eight hundred years before ? § . 29. Next he citeth as Cassanders reason against him that the Donatists were for Infant-baptism , the sixth Council of Carthage , saying that [ All that returned from the Donatists should be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy , ] and saith , [ It is but a supposition at best that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not , and can signifie nothing against all the former evidence . ] And is it not shame and pity that so publick matters of fact must be handled at this rate ? What is his former evidence but such as humane nature may blush at , to find that one called a man and a Christian , and too good for the communion of such as we , should be guilty of ? And why talketh he of this one reason against him in so publick a matter of History ? as if he knew not what abundance more may easily be produced , if it were of any need ? And how shamefully are these plain words of a Council put off , as if all the Bishops that lived in the same time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatists hold , so well as he and such as he ? § . 30. His next witnesses are [ the ancient Britains that having received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles times did intirely keep thereto — whom Austin the Monk would have engaged [ especially in Christening children and keeping Easter , but in asmuch as they utterly refused to be seduced by him therein &c. Answ . This is a witness ( being such a body of witnesses ) of great importance ( as that of the Donatists and Novatians was ) if it were true : But it 's all false still : And must our own Countrey , yea all our Christian Ancestors be thus slandered ? Whether Britain received the Christian doctrine and worship from the Apostles time ( if he mean in that time ) is very doubtful and nothing to our business : we have no sufficient proof of any such thing : The Reason of the case maketh me conjecture that Christianity was first brought hither by Soldiers , of the Roman Legions ; especially since I read in Beda that the first Temple I find any mention of was built at or near Canterbury by such Soldiers . But who ever brought it , it 's like they were of the Asian and not the Roman opinion , ( whether Soldiers that had been in the Asian Legions , or who else , is not known ) and it is certain that they were not against the observation of Easter : For both they and the Scots that concurred with them against the Romans , did strictly keep it : But all the question was of the due time . § . 31. Nor is there the least proof or probability that they were against Infant Baptism . 1. Because Augustine the Monk that quarrelled with them , never chargeth them with it , in his Ep. to Gregory or to themselves . 2. Beda that was downright against them , and a Roman zealot , and the ancientest writer after Austins time , and lived in the same Country with them , and knew them , and describeth all the contests with them , yet never layeth any such thing to their charge ; when yet he mentioneth the Rebaptizing of One by Bishop John , because it was an ignorant insufficient man for the Priesthood , that Baptized him ; and this a rare instance . 3. The Scots that about Easter and other contrarieties to the Romans , were of the Britains mind , and refused so much as to eat with the Romans , yet are charged with no such thing . 4. And the controversie continued for above an hundred years after Austins time , and great stir and meetings and disputes were about it , as Beda tells us at large , before the Scots were changed : And in all that time , there would have been opportunity for their forward adversaries ( especially Wilfrid , afterward St. Boniface of Mentz , who was the Chief ) to have found out this matter of accusation . 5. None of the historians near following those times do charge any such thing on them . And yet were the old Britains against Infant-Baptism ? § . 32. But to put all out of doubt take the words of Austin to them in his three demands thus by Beda recorded , Eccl. Hist . li. 2. c. 2. [ Vt Pascha suo tempore celebretis ; ut Ministerium baptizandi quo Deo renascimur juxta morem Romae sanctae Ecclesiae , et Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis ; ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis verbum domini ] . That is , [ 1. That you celebrate Easter at the due time ; 2. That ye compleat the Ministry of Baptism by which we are born again to God , according to the fashion ( or manner ) of the holy Church of Rome , and the Apostolical Church . 3. That you Preach with us the word of God to the English Nation ] . And what is here of Infant-Baptism ? How proveth he that that was meant by the Roman manner or fashion of Baptizing ? Is the subject of Baptism , the Manner ? when about the Manner indeed there were then so many and different ceremonies ? Nay when above an hundred years before this Austins dayes , a wiser Austin had told the Donatists , that the whole Church was agreed for Infant-Baptism , and no one Christian held it to be in vain ? sure this was not so long after , a Manner peculiar to Rome ? But thus the honour of our Ancestors , and the history of the Church , and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us , must all be heinously wronged by the falshoods of rash presuming ignorant men . § . 33. And if this had been as true as it is false ( that the old Britains were against Infant-Baptism ) it would inform these men that it is not delaying Baptism till riper age , that will keep it from formality , nor the Church from falling into all impiety : For if our eldest historian Gildas may be believed ( and who may if not he ? ) his Countrymen the Britains , were Princes , Priests and People fallen to such abhominable wickedness , murder , drunkenness , filthy lusts , deceit , theft , cruelty &c. that he takes the Princes for wolves and monsters , and the Priests for no Priests but traytors , ( excepting some good men among them ) &c. It is neither Infant nor Adult Baptism that will secure against the corrupting of Churches , but Grace with either hath saved souls . § . 34. He cites himself here Fox , quoting Beda , Polychron . and others . And what say they ? [ Baptizing after the manner of Rome ] And what 's that to his question ? But he tells you that Fa●●an saith [ that you give Christendom to children . ] I have not Fabian to examine : but if he do , when he knoweth that he is an empty f●llow , of the other day as it were and that he hath nothing but what cometh from Gregory , and Beda ; and that in them there is no such thing : will a k●●wn ●a●sification of a 〈◊〉 about nine hundred years after , disprove the yet v●●ible words of the 〈…〉 , which undertake to give you not only the se●se but the very ter●● ? § . 35. He proceedeth to prove by argument that the Britains were against-Infant Baptism . 1. Because they received the Scriptures , the Christian Faith , Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches , who had no such thing as the Baptizing of Infants among them ? Answ . No such thing in the Asiaticks Churches ? He might as well say , There is now no such thing in England . But perhaps hee 'l say that he meaneth in the Apostles time or soon after : Of which you have tryed ▪ part of his strength . But when he hath studied well Bishop Vshers Primordia who saith all that is to be said for our Antiquity , he will find no proof that we had our Religion from the Apostles or any in their time . § . 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism ? And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatick Churches , and so from the Apostles , as the Britains did ? And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism ? If not , why will it prove the same of the Britains ? § . 37. His second Argument is [ Because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture , &c. ] Answ . What will not partiality say ? 1. You must believe him that Scripture is against Infant-Baptism : And then the controversie is at an end . 2. You must believe him how closely they adhered to Scripture , if you can , when you have read Gildas ( who is translated into English ) their neighbour , one of them , the only certain historian that knew them , who describeth them as I have said , as most flagitious heinous wicked men . Though I hope they amended after Gildas dayes , yet that shewed you how they held to Apostolick discipline or Scripture . The book is so very small ; it is but equal to intreat him to read it before he use this argument again * . 3. You must believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are against Infant-Baptism . Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian , Athanasius , Nazianzene , Chrysostome , Augustine , the Aegyptian Monks , and other such strict persons in those ages , at least the Novatians , and Donatists ( in his own judgement ) prized the Scripture than the Britains ? And doth it follow ( in despite of their own professions and practises ) that all these and the rest such , were against Infant-Baptism ? § . 38. Were not this as good an argument ? Luther , Calvin , Zuinglius , Bradford , Hooper ; all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes , &c. prized the Scriptures : Ergo they were all against Infant-Baptism . Yea even Independents and Presbyterians and all that prize and cleave to them now in England ? § . 39. 3. He addeth [ Because they did so vehemently reject humane Traditions in the worship of God ; especially all Romish Rites and Ceremonies ; this as before undeniably appearing to come from Romes ordination and Imposition . ] Answ . 1. [ Vndeniably ] is a word that shameth you to every intelligent Reader that understandeth Church history . Will you not confess your self that Cyprian and that Carthage Council , Nazianzene , Basil , Augustine &c. were for Infant-Baptism ? were all these Papists , or Romans ? Can you prove any Roman Ordination of it before all these ? 2. How know you that they so vehemently rejected humane Traditions in the worship of God ? Did they not use the Asiatick Ceremonies ? Did they not precisely observe Easter , and place Religion in keeping it on their own dayes ? Had they not Bishops , and were they not Monks ? And do you gather by Gildas that they were such as you dream ? And did they not Plead Tradition for their difference from Rome ? 3. And were not the Scots then of their mind , and as much against Traditions as they ? and more against vice and formality in and after Colmans and Columbanus dayes ? And are not the Independents more against Traditions now than the Britains were ? And are they therefore Anabaptists ? § . 40. He addeth [ 4. Because Constantine the Great ( the son of Constance and the famous Helena , both eminent Christians ) in the ye●r 305. was not Baptized till he was aged as before . A clear proof that the Christians in Britain in those dayes did not Baptize their children ] . Answ . Some will laugh at these things , but I had rather mourn for the poor peoples snares . 1. It 's false that Constance was a Christian , at least when Constantine was young . No regardable history maketh him any better than a moderate favourer of the Christians . 2. It is not proveable that Helena was one in Constantines Infancy . 3. There is no probability that he was born in England , as many Learned men have proved . 4. It is certain he was educated and lived in other Lands . 5. He was no Christian in his youth himself , nor professed it till after he was Emperor : The sign of a Cross appearing in the skies and his victory thereupon is said to be the means . 6. He lived long at Rome , and Constantinople , and elsewhere before he was Baptized . And was that a certain proof that none of those Countreys were for Infant-Baptism , no nor for Baptism at Conversion neither , because Constantine was not Baptized ! 7. He kept in with the Philosophers ( having one at his Table familiar with him ) to hold all parties to him . 8. And many in those times thought that all sin being pardoned at Baptism , they must live much strictlier after they were Baptized , and were in much more danger by their sin , and therefore would not be Baptized till old , as Constantine when he was like to die . And now where is this mans clear proof that the Britains were Anabaptists ? § . 41. 5. Saith he [ Because of the Correspondency and unity that were between the French Christians after called the Waldenses , and them — viz. Germanus and Lupus . ] Answ . What abundance of untruths will one mans head hold ! 1. He would make the ignorant believe that the French Churches that sent over Germanus and Lupus were such as after were called Waldenses : When yet before he citeth Perin saying that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians banished from Rome . Beda Hist . Eccl. lib. 1. c. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21. tells us briefly that the Britains being infected with Pelagianism by Agricola the son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop , sent to France for help , as being unable themselves to dispute the case . The Bishops of France in a great Synod agreed to send Germanus Bishop of Altissiodore , and Lupus Bishop of Trecasse ( brother to Vincentius Lerinensis . ) Prosper in his Chronicle tells us that Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine by the instigation of Palladius a Deacon : Vsher reciteth and rejecteth not Baronius his conciliation , that it was done by the Pope and French Bishops . Germanus and Lupus come over , and work miracles by the way , and here Germanus carried a box with him of the Reliques of all the Apostles and many Martyrs ( Beda c. 18. ) This he layeth to the eyes of a blind maid and cured her suddedly , which confounded the Pelagians : These Reliques he buryed in St. Albanes Sepulchre ; And instead of them took with him some of the dust where St. Albanes blood had been shed , which remained red till then . And after other miracles and a victory he returned with a prosperous navigation , saith Beda c. 20. by his own Merits and St. Albanes intercession . Afterwards he returned again in a second necessity with Severus , and delivered the Britains from Pelagianism , who yet lived in such wickedness as Beda after Gildas describeth . Here let the Reader note against Mr. Danvers dream , 1. That this was done in 429. And if Mr. D. could prove indeed that all the Bishops of France then were Waldenses , or of the judgement so called so long after , he would do us Knights service against the Papists in the question of the perpetual visibility of the Church . But if I cite Mr. Danvers for it , I doubt they will laugh at me , and make no more of his authority than I do of the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrology . 2. Note that Prosper saith it was the Pope that sent Germanus . 3. Note that he was sent by the Bishops of France , who then did little differ from Rome , but submitted to his Primacy , ( and Patriarchate ) in the Empire , though reserving their liberties ; Read the Epistles of Leo 1. against Hillary Arelat . and all that story , and you will see how much the Pope usurped there betimes . 4. Pope Celestine was the great maintainer of Augustine against Pelagius , and so the apter to do this . 5. The Pope had before this sent Palladius to the Britains who received him : And therefore they were then on some fair terms with him . 6. Germanus and Lupus were Bishops , and they that sent him ; and so Antichristian to some Anabaptists 7. Germanus sure was not of Mr. D's . Church , that used Reliques so strangely for working miracles ? Was this an Anabaptist ? 8. This was all done after Augustine had written , that no Christian thought Infant-Baptism vain : ( or about that time . ) And yet were all the Britains then of another mind ? 9. The Bishops of France ( with Pope Celestine ) took part with Augustine against Pelagius , and sent Lupus with Germanus to do that work : And yet were all these Bishops against Augustine , about Infant-Baptism , which he saith all the Church Vniversal agreed in ? 10. Lastly , the Britains were infected with Pelagianism ; Pelagius ( called Morgan , being a Britain ( and Vsher saith , some say born the same day with Augustine ) and Celestius a Scot or Irish man ; And the Pelagians themselves were for Infant-Baptism , ( And if any Christians in the world had been against it , they would have been the likeliest , who denyed Original sin : Yet even they durst not deny this . ) And is it a credible thing that all these Britains who were some of Pelagius's mind , and some of Augustines , were yet against both in point of Infant-Baptism ? Yea and not a word said of this by any writer , when their Pelagianism made so great a stir ! Yet this man gathereth that the Churches of France were Anabaptists ( contrary to all history ) because the Waldenses 600 years after were Anabaptists ( which is also false : ) And the Britains were Anabaptists , because the Churches of France sent two Learned men to dispute against Pelagianism in England , ( when the unlearned Britains could not do it ) . Reader , will not this kind o● arguing make thee an Anabaptist ? or else make thee pitty the seduced party ? O what a temptation to Popery do such men lay before the people ! When men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes , shall thus pour out falshoods to cheat mankind , and the ignorant know not but it may all be true , it tempteth men to think that there must be some Authorized men whom the Ignorant must believe before such seducers , or else confusion and falshood will take place of truth , and the people will be as children tossed up and down , and carryed to and fro with every wind of doctrine . And indeed a concordant Ministry is so to be preferred , though it infer not a Roman infallibility . § . 42. 6. His last proof that the Britains were against Infant Baptism , is because Augustine the Monk was himself so raw and ignorant in the rite , as to ask , How long the Baptizing of a child might be deferred , there being no danger of death ? ] Answ . I grow ashamed that I have medled with such a Collector : A baculo ad angulum . Doth it not rather imply that there was no controversie between him and the Britains about Infant-Baptism , seeing he never mentioned any such thing ? § . 43. His next witnesses against Infant-Baptism are in the fourth Century , called by him Dadoes , Sabas , Adulphus , and Simonis who ( saith he in his catalogue ) oppose it . And p. 229. he saith to prove it , but that they were charged to have an ill opinion of the Sacrament of the Altar and of Infants Baptism . And he citeth Histor . Tripartita li. 7. c. 11. ( and some fellow an hundred years ago . ) Answ . And have we here any honester dealing than before ? Read and judge . That which the Tripartite History cited by him saith is this , that [ There was then a Sect called Messalians or Euchetes ( known in the Catalogues of Hereticks ) and called The Praying Hereticks ) who expected the operation of some Devil thinking him to be the Spirit of God , refusing to work and giving themselves to lie and sleep to expect Revelations ; Indeed their opinion was that Prayer was all , and Baptism and the Lords Supper were nothing , dicentes Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse nec laedere ; that the Sacred or Sacramental food , did neither profit nor hurt : These men were led by one Dadoes , Sabbos , Adelphius , Hermas and Simeon : And Adelphus when old ( for they hid their opinion ) bewrayed his error in a speech to Flavian of Antioch ; that Baptism doth the Baptized person no good , but prayer only expelleth the Devil . And 1. These men were no more against Infant-Baptism than against the adults Baptism . For they were above all Ordinances save Prayer . 2. They were against neither as unlawful , but against both and other ordinances as unprofitable . 3. They carryed this much in secret ; which they could not have concealed had they not Baptized Infants . 4. Some hereticks , and all Infidels and Pagans were against all Baptism as well as they : And doth any of this prove that any one Christian was against Infant Baptism more than adult ? § . 44. Next he tells you that Faustus Regiensis saith that Personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be Baptized ( Vincent and Cresconius I spoke to before ) And he citeth not a word of his writings for it , nor any other but one Jacob Merning , I suppose a Dutch Anabaptist . Answ . Reader , thou seest still how thou art used . Faustus Rhegiensis is a known Author ; his works are common ; He is commonly taken for a Semipelagian , and he hath a book to prove that souls are bodies , which Claudianus Mammertus hath answered . But I never read one syllable in him , nor in any other that ever wrote of him or against him , that should make one doubt whether he was for Infant-baptism . Could he be in such a station as he was , and have so many writings , and so many adversaries , and yet hold such an opinion and never be suspected ? Do the Anabaptists no better own their cause ? But the words he alledgeth are but such as he citeth of my own ; If truly cited , no doubt spoken only of the adult , and of what the Infants do by them . But who can answer words not cited ? Must we read all his works again to see if there be such a word , as oft as such a man will talk to us at this rate ? § . 45. The next is [ Albanus a zealous godly Minister in the sixth Century was put to death for baptizing Believers , though baptized in Infancy or by Hereticks . ] Answ . Still all alike . 1. Baronius is cited an . 413. n. 6. when in my Book there is not a syllable of any such matter : 2. But thereabout he hath the History of the Donatists , who rebaptized all both old and young , as if our Separatists now should tell all England , [ You are all out of the true Church which is only with us , and if you come not to us and be not baptized in our Churches , you have no true baptism nor can be saved . ] And for such rebaptizing many were troubled . And is this a witness against Infant-baptism ? Shall we not have one true word ? § . 46. His tale of Swermers he refers us for to Merning and Rulicius , or Lulicius and Glanaus , men that I know not so well as himself , and I had rather he had referred me to himself or Mr. Tombes . § . 47. He addeth p. 231. [ Nicephorus l. 17. c. 9. saith that [ In the year 550. one Peter Bishop of Apamen and Zoroarus a Monk in Syria did maintain and defend the point of dipping , rebaptization or weder-dipping . Answ . Did Nicephorus write in Dutch ? 1. Is dipping any thing to the case of Infants ? 2. Are you really for Rebaptizing ; and are you justifying it ? If not , why cite you instances of Rebaptizers ? Too many besides the Donatists rebaptized others to engage them to their Sect as the only Church . 3. Do you know the History of the Council of Calcedon and Dioscorus , and the Nestorians ? Reader , believe not this man any further than sense or great evidence constraineth thee : That which Nicephorus there saith is this , [ Severus of Antioch , and Peter of Apamea , and Zooras a Monk , were found to curse the Council of Calcedon , and to hold but one nature in Christ ; praeterea anabaptismos aliaque nefandae obscoenitatis plena facinora peragere , that is , [ and also to have practised Rebaptizings , and other villanies full of such obscenity that is not to be named . ] If he rejoyce in these Witnesses , is here a word of Infant-baptism ? When shall I come to a sentence that is true ? § . 48. The next is [ Adrian Bishop of Corinth in the seventh Century did publickly oppose Infant-Baptism , insomuch as he would neither Baptize them himself , nor suffer them to be Baptized by others , but wholly denyed Baptism to them : Wherefore he was accused by Gregory Mag. Bishop of Rome , to John Bishop of Larissa , as appears by Gregories Letter to the said John , in which among others he complains against the said Adrian that he turned away children from Baptism and let them die without it , for which they proceeded against him as a great transgressor and blasphemer . ] Answ . Not one true Sentence in all this : 1. It 's false that Adrian publickly opposed Infant-Baptism . 2. It 's false that he was accused for it by Gregory , or that Gregory laid any such thing to his charge : 3. Or that they so proceeded , if my books be true . Reader , the case in Gregories Epistles here cited is this . Adrian was accused malevolently of many things ( not by Gregory ) but to Gregory : Among others , that through him some Infants had dyed without Baptism . Gregory writeth to John Bishop of Larissa on his behalf , and saith that [ no one of the witnesses could say that he knew any such thing by him , but that they were told so by the mothers of some children , whose Husbands had for their faults been removed ( from the Church ) sed nec in baptizatos eos mortis tempus professi sunt occupasse , sicut accusatorum continebat invidiosa suggestio , cum in Demetriade Civitate baptizatos eos esse constiterit ] that is , [ Nor did ( the witnesses ) say , that they died unbaptized , as the envious suggestion of the accusers contained ; for it is manifest that they were baptized in the City Demetrias . ] 1. Is here a word that he was against Infant-baptism ? 2. Could a Bishop of so great a City and Diocess have been against Infant-baptism and none to be able to prove it , even in envious accusations ? Would not every week detect it ? 3. Would Great Gregory have thus justified him , if he h●d but suspected such a thing , above a hundred years after Austin said no one Christian thought Infant-baptism vain ? Was this great Pope an Anabaptist ? 4. Is it not plain by all this , th●● it was but the particul●● children of some excommunicate mens wives , who maliciously accuse him ( not for being against Infant-baptism ; no nor against their Infants baptism ; but ) for delaying it ? It is like , to difference them from the children of Church-members : And yet that they were afterward baptized . See here what a witness he hath brought ? § . 49. The next in his Catalogue is , [ Aegyptian Divines ] but after in his book before it he tells you of one Berinius an eminent learned man that professed instruction to be necessary before baptism , and that without it baptism ought not to be administred to high or low ] and citeh Beda l. 4. c. 16. Reader , the passage in Beda is but this , That Ceadwall having conquered the Isle of Wight gave it to Bishop Wilfrid ( no friend to Anabaptists ) who gave it his Sisters Son Bernwin appointing him a Priest called Hildila , who by his labour among the Heathens converted and baptized two of the Kings Sons , who were baptized and had a strange deliverance . And is there a syllable in this story that Infant-baptism is concerned in ? No nor a word of one Berinus an eminent learned man that professed as he saith , though it be nothing to the purpose : Nor was the business done as he saith in Lower Saxony but in the Isle of Wight ; so little is there that hath the least kin to truth in this lamentable Reporter . § . 50. His Testimony of Aegyptian Divines he citeth two late Papists for ( instead of just proof ) who neither of them ever dreamed that those Aegyptians were against Infant-Baptism . That the adult should be Catechised and instructed before Baptism , all the Christian world agreed : That there were some Monasteries of the Aegyptian Monks that would not hold communion with the Church of Rome , is known ; and what a turn was made among many of the Clergy after the Council of Chalcedon on Dioscor●s his account , whereupon a great body of the Southern Churches cut off from Rome , and disowning them are called Nestorians ( many injuriously ) to this day . And Fulgentius was disswaded from going to the strict Heremites and Monasticks near Aegypt , because they were separated from the Roman Communion , as you may see in Fulgentius's life . But what is all this to Infant-baptism ? § . 51. Next he tells us that in the ninth Century Hincmarus Laudunens . was against Infant-baptism , and reciteth many words of Hincmarus Rhenensis to him . Answ . The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl . To. 2. containing 55. Chapters : And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations , I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths : All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this , about a Village in the other Pari●h , whom it should pay Tythes to , [ habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes sine baptismate , & quot homines sine Communione inde obierunt , quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles , ne postea tibi improperarem ; at si alia mala de me scires , illa etiam de me diceres . ] Reader , is here a syllable against Infant-baptism ? Who was the accuser here ? What is in the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary , that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it , when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion ? Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused ? And are we therefore against Infant-baptism ? Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it ? § . 52. Reader , the truth is I am so weary of this work , that I cannot perswade my self to follow it any further , it is so sad and loathsom a business that is set before us ; fitter to be wept over than answered at large . I shall yet take notice of what he saith of the Waldenses , and to that further say , 1. That I have elsewhere vindicated them already from this slander . 2. That so do many of their bitter adversaries , in laying no such thing to their charge . Among whom to what is said elsewhere , I add but the Testimony of Nauclerus a Popish bitter enemy to them , who Vol. 2. part 2. pag. 265. reciteth their Doctrine as being agreeable with the body of Doctrine held in the Reformed Churches , never mentioning any denial of Infant-baptism , but only that they affirmed Water to be sufficient without Oyl . AND now as to our Testimonies for the Common practice of Infant-baptism from the daies of the Apostles , I will not abuse the Reader by reciting again the testimonies long ago recited . Let him but consider what I have there said out of Justin , Irenaeus , Origen , Tertullian , Cyprian , Nazianzene , Augustin and others , and I leave the matter to his Judgement . § . 53. And further where they feign Nazianzen to be indifferent I will add but these words out of his Orat. 40. vol. 1. p. 648. Ed. Morel . [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 — [ Hast thou an Infant ? Let not naughtiness surprize him first , [ Let him be sanctified from his Infancy : Let him be consecrated to the spirit from his Infancie : But dost thou fear the seal because of the weakness of his nature ? How weak a minded mother art thou , and of how little faith ? But Hannah , &c. Thou hast no need of Amulets and Inchantments * with which the wicked one creepeth into the minds of vain men , stealing to himself the veneration due to God : Give him the Trinity , that great and excellent [ Amulet . ] That all this is spoken of Baptism is past all doubt : Yet Nazianzen in some cases admitteth of delay till three years old : But took baptism to be so necessary for Infants , that he thought that if any though by surprize and not the Parents contempt should die unbaptized , they should not goe to Heaven ( or be Rewarded ) though he thought they should not go to Hell or be punished : Ib. Orat. 40. His opinion therefore for delay three years in case of safety consisted with too much apprehension of its necessity even to Infants . § . 54. When I read his language of holy Cyprian , I confess the apparition of so frightful a spirit , doth affright me from his doctrine . First , The man ( with greater audaciousness than the Papists use the Fathers , ) doth first attempt against all consent of antiquity , and without any proof , to question the truth of the sentence of Cyprian and the Carthage Council to Fidus. Secondly , And what could he say more to betray the Prot●stant Cause to the Papists , than as after [ Either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined , or that he himself was a notable Factor for Antichrist , and that in him the mystery of iniquity did very strongly work . ] The man it seems had never read Jeremy Stephens his Edition of Cyprian de unit . Eccl. and how those few words of Peter and the Church of Rome were added by Corrupters ( though he is willing to believe in the general that his writings were corrupted ) But we have certain Copies at least of so much of them , as confute his Cause . I remember our great Antiquary Bishop Vsher told me that it was Tertullian and Cyprian that he took for the Chief Records of Church Antiquities , next a few small things which give little information of matters of fact . And some of the things that this man so starteth at , Cyprian held , and as Epiphanius saith , All the Christian Churches : And must he then be a Factor for Antichrist ? Who then is this Man a Factor for ? Mark , Reader , whether it be any wonder if I be abhominable and Antichristian to him , when Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops with him must come under ( hypothetically ) that suspicion . 1. That Cyprian who was so holy and wise a man ; 2. That lived before Antichrist was born ; 3. That died a Martyr for Christ ; 4. Who is so great a part of the pure antiquity ; that if you cast him away , what will the rest be for a great time ? 5. That Cyprian who is called by some the first Anabaptist , because he was for rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks ; 6. That Cyprian who so stifly opposed the Bishop of Rome ( though himself was in the error ; ) 7. That Cyprian whom the Donatists boasted of as their predecessor in rebaptizing , and Austin was put to answer ( though with his honour ; ) 8. That Cyprian who lived before any Christian Emperor , when strict discipline upheld religion without and against the Magistrates sword ; and who wrote so many of his Epistles only for the rigor of Church-discipline ? O wh●t pleasure is this to Papists ? If we be but such Antichristians say they , as holy Cyprian and the primitive Churches were , we will prefer it before the Anabaptists Christianity ? § . 55. And if Cyprian was Antichristian , where then was the Church of Christ ? It will be hard to answer Papist or Seeker about its visibility , or Infidel about its reality : And what a King do they make Christ that make him to have no Kingdom , that they can prove to have been existent — § . 56. We will easily grant him that Cyprian de unit . Eccl. is abused by the Papists , and the very words thrust in are proved so to be by many Copies that have them not : Yea , Jeremy Stephens saith that there are eight Copies in England which omit twenty three of the Epistles which are commonly received ( and it 's most credible by other Copies are Genuine : ) And yet none of these leave out the Epistle to Fidus about Infant-baptism . § . 57. And whereas he saith that Cyprian urged not Tradition , I answer , there was no cause : For the question was not whether Infants should be baptized ; much less whether they were to be dedicated in Covenant to God , and to be Church-members ; but only whether they should be baptized before the eighth day : For Fidus thought that at one two or three days old they were so unclean as made them unmeet for baptism , and that the eighth day was the time of their purification ; which Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops confuted , and shewed that Gods mercy accepteth them from the beginning without respect to legal days . And what use was here for a plea from Tradition for Infant-baptism , which was not denied ? § . 58. And it seems to me to be a great evidence that the Tradition of the Church was then for it , in that this Council of Bishops ( before true Popery was born ) so unanimously determine of the day or time , and not one of them , no nor Fidus himself that raised the doubt , did so much as raise any scruple or question about Infant-baptism it self at all : which sure they would have done on such an occasion if any or many Christians , or any Churches had denied it . No wonder therefore if Augustin so long after say that no Christian taketh it to be in vain ? § . 59. Yet again I will confess , that the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen , shew that it was long before all were agreed of the very time , or of the necessity of baptizing Infants before any use of Reason , in case they were like to live to maturity : For I am perswaded that the Apostles and first Ministers were so taken up with the Converting of Infidels ( Jews and Gentiles ) that the case of Infant-baptism was so postponed and taken but as an Appendix to the baptism of the adult , as that it was thought less needful to give it a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church . The Churches made no question of Infants Church-membership , as being undoubtedly in the promise , and devoted to God by all faithful parents : And they took not baptism at first , for their first Covenanting or Consent , but for the solemnization of it ; and so not for Infants first real state of relation to Christ and right to life ( which was before it , as it was to believers before baptism ; ) but for the solemn investiture in those rights : And so Greg. Nazian . Or. 40. giveth this brief definition of baptism , that it is nothing else but a Covenant made with God for a new and purer kind of life : And hereupon many who thought Infants Church-members ( visible ) and safe upon their Parents Covenant consent , thought that the time of solemnization was so far left to prudence as that ( as the Israelites did Circumcision in the wilderness ) it might be delayed a few years by such Parents as desired it , till children could somewhat answer for themselves . § . 60. Yet after my review of this controversie upon their urgencie , I find no proof brought by any of these men , that ever one Church in the world was without Infant-members , ( that had Infants , ) nor one person in the Church against Infant Church-membership and baptism , from Christs days till the Waldenses ( about eleven hundred or a thousand years ) except that Tertullian , who took them for Innocent and therefore Church-members , did in some case advise the delay : I say , I find not one Christian or Heretick against it : ( unless you will impute it to them that were against all baptism , which Infidels also are . ) And though I verily believe that the Waldenses were not against Infant-baptism , nor is there full proof that any in their time were , yet because I am loth to judge the Papists utterly impudent lyars , I think it most probable that in the Waldenses days and Country , there was a sort of odious Hereticks , that denied Infant-baptism , and the Resurrection , and held community of Wives and other abominations reported all together by their opposers in those times . CHAP. V. Mr. Danvers's great Calumnie of my self refuted . § . 1. MR. D. pag. 134. Ed. 1. saith thus [ Yet is not Mr. Baxter ashamed to fix such an abhominable slander upon the Baptists of this our age of baptizing naked : ( which it seems was so long the real practice of the paedobaptists ) and about which he spends three whole pages to aggravate the heynousness of their custom ( which he is pleased to father on them . ) And though I am perswaded he cannot but be convinced that the thing is most notoriously false , and brought forth by him rather out of prejudice ( not to say malice ) rather than any proof or good testimony he ever received thereof ; yet have I never heard that he hath done himself , his injured neighbours and the abused world that right as to own his great weakness and sinful shortness therein , in any of the many Editions of that piece , which I humbly conceive as well deserved a recantation as some other things he has judged worthy thereof . ] § . 2. Answ . To live and die impenitently in so unprofitable a sin ( and unpleasing to any but diabolical natures ) as is the belying of others , is a very dreadful kind of folly . I would heartily wish that Mr. Danvers and I might meet and help to bring each other to repentance , by a willing impartial examination of each of our guiltinesses herein . § . 3. I never look to speak to them thus more , nor long to any man on earth , and in this station and with these thoughts I must profess ( not thinking it lawful to belie my self ) that in the year 1647. or 1648. or both when Anabaptistry began suddenly to be obtruded with more successful fervency than before , I lived near Mr. Tombes in a Country where some were , and within the hearing of their practice in other parts of the land : And that in that beginning the common frame of Ministers and people was , that in divers places some baptized naked and some did not : And that I never to my best remembrance heard man or woman contradict that report till this man did it in this writing : And that no Anabaptist contradicted it to me that I then or since conversed with : And that thereupon in 1659. I wrote against both sorts , those that baptized naked , and those that did not : And after all this when Mr. Tombes answered my book and those very passages , he never denied the truth of the thing ( though he did not so baptize himself ( unless he have any where else since said any thing of it which I never saw or heard of . ) And I appeal to impartial reason , whether he would not then at the time have denied it , had it been deniable : And whether this man now twenty five or six years after be fitter to be believed in a matter of fact , than common consent at the present time ? And whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars , rather than this one man that hath written us such a book ? and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness , no nor if he had written at that time : For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge ? § . 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists , or of most , or of any in any other age , or that I have since said that any continue the same practice , he would but deceive men : for it is nothing so . § . 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked , nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports : But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time , I think it is to be taken so much notice of , as the confuting of the evil doth require . § . 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator , Adulterer , Murderer or Thief ( as I remember ) in England : And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance , lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such , I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity , and unrighteous justice . § . 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame : The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder ; the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster , or in the time of David George : Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long : The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely : And is he a lyar that saith it , because they do not so now ? I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked ( as a Prophet ) before our eyes through the high street , and they said they did so in many other places : I know not the mans name now , nor any of the multitude of Spectators , if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it . I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead ( taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him ( in vain ) to live . ) But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for , I must travel to the place before I could produce them . § . 8. Yea , I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize ( or baptize the aged : ) But fame saith they do so and none deny it . If it prove false , I shall be glad , and will joyn in vindicating them ; And so I say of the present case ; And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting , and rash ungrounded defamations of others . CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words . § . 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self , which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer , and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them , and alledging my words , as justifying his cause , I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers , about a particular vindication of my words , so triflingly and vainly used by them . § . 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them , or the force of the arguments ; or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself . The first I may well presume it is not : If it were , the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is . If it be the second , why do they use any arguments of mine , when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them ? And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author ? But seeing I must believe that the last is their business , I can have leisure to say little more than this to them , that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members ; nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me ; But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do , and can reconcile my words when they cannot . If this satisfie not them , it satisfieth me . § . 3. In summ , the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils : 1. That most of them speak to the Question [ What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism ? Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed ? Or the profession of a saving faith ? as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent ? ] And I prove that it is no other sort of faith , but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts , as the Condition of his Covenant : And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith ( as to object or act ) but of this saving faith , which the Church must accept to the admission of members : A lower profession will serve for none . 2. But I still maintain ( and I think fully proved ) that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent ( nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself ) as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself , and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent , and doth Covenant with God , as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men , who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract , as in a lease for his life , or the like . Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent ; but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child , of an Owner , a Governour and a Lover , God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God , and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity , and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age : And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights , as if he had done it himself ; and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents , which in proper speech , is , They did it for him at Gods Command . § . 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer , let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings , with those before and after that explain them , or else if he will do as this man doth , abuse his own understanding and his ignorant Readers , by such silly wranglings animated by partiality , let him bear the Consequents , and know that I have somewhat else to do with my few remaining hours , than to write books on such insufficient invitations and expectations . CHAP. VII . Of Danvers's many other accusations of me . § . 1. IT was one of the old Characters of the Hereticks in the Apostles dayes , To speak evil of the things that they understood not . And that may well be their Character in which they contradict the three great constitutive parts of Christianity , and all Religion , and true honesty , viz. TRUTH , HUMILITY and LOVE , by Falshood , Pride and Malignity , ( called commonly Vncharitablness . ) § . 2. The Root of this is , when Reigning , an unsanctified heart in which these vices remain unmortified , covered from the owners knowledge , by a form of Godliness , and especially a zeal for the wayes of some Party , more honoured in the persons eyes for wisdom , or piety than others : In others there is a great measure of the same vices mixed with true Grace , where an evil and a good cause are conjoyned as to some effects : They love God and his Truth , and they hate all that they think against him , they would promote piety in the world , and repress what they think against it ; And being persons whose wits and studies were not such , as exactness and largeness of knowledge do require , but yet lovers of knowledge , truth , and Scripture , they have more knowledge than prophane sots , but little , alas , little , in comparison of that which is necessary to a methodical , accurate understanding of the matters which frequently fall under controversie ; And so knowing but little they know not what they are ignorant of , nor what others know beyond them ; And it being the common vice of mans understanding , to be hasty in judgeing before they hear or know one half that is necessary to a true and faithful judgement , and so to be confident before they understand , these men hereby are led to confidence in many an error : And an erring judgement first telleth them that Truth is falshood , and falshood truth , that Good is evil , and evil good , that Duty is sin , and sin is duty ; and then a good cause and a bad , the Love of Truth and a perverse and partial zeal concur , to put them on in the way of error . Ignorance and error set them on a wrong cause , and a mixt affection or zeal , partly good and partly evil spurreth them on . And in these the Error and Heresie and consequent sins , are no more predominant than the cause ; and God will have mercy on those that in ignorance , with good meanings , oppose many truths , and do much evil . § . 3. And the great means of nourishing this sin in Churches is departing from Christs Church order , who hath appointed Teaching and Learning to be the setled way of getting knowledge ; And therefore required all his disciples to come to his Church , as little children to School , with teachable humble minds , to Learn , and not with proud wrangling minds to dispute : If all our children should spend their time at School in disputing with the Teacher and setting their wits against his as in a conflict , what would they thus Learn ? § . 4. Therefore Paul saith , that the servant of the Lord must not strive , and oft calleth men from perverse disputings , and striving about words which subvert the hearers , and from such contendings as edifie not but tend to more ungodliness , ( though the faith may be contended for , and truth defended , when opposition maketh it truly necessary ) . § . 5. When a man seeketh after knowledge as a Learner , he meeteth it with a willing mind ; he cometh towards it with an appetite , and so is a capable receiver : But when a man cometh as a disputant , he is ingaged already to one side , and if that be false he cometh out to fight against the truth , with a spirit of opposition , hating truth as error , and good as evil , and thinks it his duty and interest to destroy and shame it if he can , and therefore is unapt to think what may be said for it , but studyeth all that he can against it . And is this loathing , and opposition and fighting against truth the way to know it ? § . 6. Therefore that which hath undone the Churches peace is , that too many Teachers , being themselves too forward to controversies , have too hastily drawn in their people into their quarrels , and cast such bones before them in books and pulpits instead of food , which break their teeth and set them together by the ears instead of nourishing them . And so one mans hearers are taught to dispute for this sort of Government , and anothers for that sort ; one mans for free-will and anothers against it ; when perhaps neither they nor the master of the quarrel can tell you what it is ? and so of an hundred more such like . The honest hearers when they should be digesting the ancient Christian doctrine , and learning to increase in Love to God and man , and to practise a holy and a heavenly life , and prepare for a comfortable death , and happy eternity by a Living faith and hope , are taught that if they be not zealots for this opinion or that , for Anabaptistry , for separation , &c. if they pray by a book , or if they joyn with those that hold such things as they hear called by odious frightful names , they are not then right zealous Christians , but corrupt or complyers or lukewarm ; And thus each Church is made a miserable Church-militant , and trained up to war against each other . § . 7. And this Ministers have done , partly to strengthen themselves by the consent and number of their adherents , as the Captain must conquer by his Souldiers : When they can set a great number on hating their adversaries , and backbiting them , and telling the hearers wherever they come , to make them seem odious , how erroneous and bad such and such men are , they think they have done much of their work ? And while they think it is for Christ , they know not how notably they please and serve the Devil . But I must remember that I have spoken of this elsewhere , and so dismiss it . § . 8. That Mr. Danvers and his imitaters speak evil ( confidently and vehemently ) of the things they know not ( yea very many such ) I am sure . But from what principle or root , or how far that vice which produceth these fruits is mortified or unmortified as to all others , I am neither called nor willing to judge . I remember how Mr. Tho. Pierce once dealt with me : When my Religious neighbour could hardly be perswaded to communicate with those among them that were of his judgement , saying , they were men that would swear and lie , and lived scandalously , I thought it my duty ( to keep up discipline and yet ) to moderate their censures by telling them what sins I thought might stand with some measure of sincere piety , and Church-communion . And what doth he but hence take advantage to tell the world how loose my doctrine was , and what sinful persons I thought had grace ? So now if I should say , that notwithstanding these hard-faced falshoods heaped together , and confidently obtruded on the ignorant , even about publick and visible matter of fact , yet I hope the Au●hor feareth God truly in other respects , and erreth through Ignorance , passion , and temerity ; I should be told publickly ere long by one or other , that I think the most brazen-faced Lyars may be Saints : And if I deny such mens Goodness , I look to be told that I am censorious and a reviler of godly men that differ from me . Therefore I am thankful to Christ that he not only excuseth us from so hard a work as the Judging of the sincerity of others , but calls us off , and saith , who art thou that judgest another mans servant ? to his own master he stands or falls : But whoever censure me for it , I will say that my judgement still inclineth to the hopeful and charitable part ! For siding and error may draw good men into heinous sins . § . 9. That He and I do differ in Judgement and Practice , is not to be denyed : I thought our difference had been but in so small and tolerable things ( till I saw worse in his writings ) as should neither abate Love or forbid Communion : And thinking so , I was the likelier to practise as I thought , and not to hate him and such as he : But I perceive he takes the differences to be far greater , and my errors and sins to be more heinous and intolerable , and therefore if he hate me ( though I know not that ever he saw me or I him ) it is no wonder , it being more agreeable to his judgement ; And also if he would not tolerate me were it in his power . § . 10. If he so greatly differ from me , and be in the right , certainly it is because he is either a great deal wiser and more knowing in these matters , or because he is more conscionable to avoid perverting temptations , and more Godly and fit for divine light . I deny not either : but from the bottom of my heart tell him , that I am so deeply conscious of the darkness and smalness of my understanding , and my little goodness and very ill deserts from God , that did he bring me any considerable evidence for his cause , my great suspicion of my self would prepare me to hear him : But it must not be such stuff as he here obtrudeth on us . And I must tell him , though I acknowledge God to be a free Benefactor , and may give the Greatest Knowledge to them that have least laboured for it ; yet while diligent searching is his commanded means , I shall doubt whether his easier and shorter search hath attained to so much more than my harder and longer , till the fruit shall prove it . § . 11. He tells us Ed. 2. p. 170. that I [ cannot do my self more right and my offended brethren , than to clear my self in these particulars which are indeed so heinous , not only to every one of his Nonconforming brethren , but to most Protestants that hear them . ] Answ . 1. Still such untruths ? Do you know what most Protestants think that hear them ? and every one of my Nonconforming brethren ? Why some of the wisest of them that I know did read them over , and approved them before they were printed ? Others ( many and many ) of the most judicious also of my acquaintance have since professed their consent : Nay more ; I remember not one Minister that hath made me know by word or writing to me that he dissenteth from any one of all these heinous things . I remember that once some objected what they heard others say ( not as consenting to the opposers ) and acquiesced in my answers , or rather in the words of the book perused . So that if every one of my Nonconforming brethren be offended , and I known not of one , nor any one of them would ever vouchsafe a word or line to convince me , you censure them for woful dissemblers or uncharitable . But I believe them of themselves rather than you . § . 12. He addeth , And I dare be bold to say , hath given more general offence , and lost Mr. Baxter more amongst his Friends * , than any thing he did in all his life . ] Answ . 1. The offence which Christ dreadfully condemneth , which is scandalizing the weak or laying snares or stumbling-blocks before them , to tempt them to think ill of Christ , or Godliness , or to commit any sin , I would avoid as carefully as I can , And to avoid it I have written that which offendeth you . But the offence which is but Displeasing dissenters , yea mistaking men , I little regard on my own account . And your talk of my loss ( or being lost ) doth savour so rankly of a humane hypocritical temptation , as maketh me remember what Christ said to Peter Math. 16.23 . that would have had him save himself from suffering , though I will not speak out such unpleasing words to you : But your words savour too much of the flesh . O Sir , it is but a few moments more , and you and I shall be in a world , where the thoughts and words of mortals , of us , will be of small importance to us ! And themselves are hasting to the day when all their thoughts perish . O cease from man whose breath is in his nostrils : for wherein is he to be accounted of ? Would you tempt me to look to the hypocrites reward ? the approbation of man ? O miserable reward ▪ Were not that book odious to you , I would refer you for my Reasons to the two Chapters of Man-pleasing and Pride : If Gods approbation seem not enough for us , why call we him our God ? But if I have lost so much as you intimate , you would perswade me that my service is more than I take it to be ? I have felt little comfort in any service of God which cost me nothing . But you shall not tempt me to over-value it so much ; I find no loss at all by it . What have I lost Sir ? Not one farthing or farthings-worth , that I am aware of ! As I lived not on any man before , so I am never the poorer for that duty now . Is it mens praise or good thoughts of me ? Not one friend to my remembrance in the City or Land hath once told me his dissent , much less that I have lost his good esteem : ( Only one young man that heard me Preach came for satisfaction about one of the particulars , who was satisfied as far as I could perceive , and I wisht him but to read over all in my book ( about that you object concerning the Crucifix ) and I heard of him no more . ) And if I am so much lost with my friends , and no one of them in England tell me that he dissenteth , and wherein , such friends are not so valuable as to be any of my felicity ! And do you call a man [ lost ] that loseth the thoughts or the breath of man ? As it is their own duty or sin , I regard all mens thoughts or words , and so would please all men for their good to edification : But as to my own comfort I can spare yours and theirs ; and if you and a thousand such should write a Cart-load of Calumnies as you have done , I think they would break but little of my sleep . Set these arguments next before hypocrites that live on man : I live not on them . But your words do mind me , how men that are embodyed in little parties , ( far less than the Donatists or Novatians ) are inclined to take their Cabin for all the Kingdom , and their Sect for the Church , and are affected with their praise or dispraise almost as if they were all the world . You hear your folks it seems talk against me ( with whom backbiting is a duty ) and you seem to dream that it is all my friends . If God in Christ will be my friend , I can spare others . And tell me Sir , for what prize or gain do you think I am lost with all my friends ? No man in his wits will voluntarily be lost for nothing . Do you think it is to get other friends that I more value ? Who be they ? Is it the Papists ? Enquire what I get by them . Is it the Diocesan . party ? What have I got by them but silencing and the loss of all Ministerial maintenance , these twelve years ? And ask them whose writings have more offended them yours or mine . If I am lost , it hath ●ost me more years hard study to be lost , and to be erroneous or a fool , than it hath done you to be some body and to be wise ; And I tell you I never yet repented of Cost or loss for that Truth and duty , which you lament as heinous error and sin . But naked truth , and the faithful endeavours of pleasing God , in promoting that Love among Christs disciples , and peace in his Churches which Church Tyrants and Sects have so many ages laboured ( too succesfully ) to destroy , are sweeter than to be forsaken either through the persecution of one sort or the Revilings of the other , or the loss of all mens friendship upon earth . And yet I will add , that though being long ago glutted with mens applause , as finding it a luscious but unwholesome thing , and having voluntarily cast up much of it my self , I yet perceive no want of friends , but take your words of them for meer slanders . § . 13. Saith Mr. D. ( Pref. ed. 1. ) [ He hath so much abounded ( in contradictions ) ( none more that I know of ; ) being as you 'l find , sometime a great opposer , then a great defender of Episcopacy . ] Answ . 1. Yet I know not that ever this man saw me ( as I said ) or I him . 2. This falshood did unhappily overslip him , my writing being so full a confutation of it , that he can have nothing of sense to say to cloak it . My judgement was for Episcopacy 1639. by Reading Bishop Downame and some others : But in 1640. the oath called Et caetera calling us to swear never to consent to the alteration of the present Government by A. Bishops , Bishops , Deans , Archdeacons , &c. forced me to study the whole cause to the bottom , since which time my judgement of Episcopacy never altered ( which is 34 years ago ) having setled in the Receptibility of one sort of Episcopacy , and the desirableness of another , and the dislike of another sort : All which I have fully published in my Dispute of Church-Government 1658. when the Bishops here were at the lowest . Either this man knew me and my writings herein , or not . If not , what a man is this that dare talk thus confidently and falsly of what he knew not ? If he did , then how much more flagitious is his practice , thus to tell the world an untruth so notorious to himself ? He saith ( as you may find ) but never tells you where . Let him tell you where and when I ever defended that Episcopacy which I had opposed ? § . 14. [ Mr. D. [ Sometime for Nonconformity ( in whose tents he hath seemed to shelter himself in the storm , and with their Indulgence to come forth of his hole ) and yet at length so highly to disgrace the same . Answ . 1. Let him shew you if he can , where or when I have changed my judgement about Conformity , or exprest a change since 1640 ? Not that I take it for a disgrace to be mutable by growing wiser : But necessity forced me so long ago to study those controversies so hard , as fixed me , and I never heard any thing since which considerably altered me therein : Which also being visible in the foresaid Dispute of Liturgie , Ceremonies , &c. written 1658. leave no cloak for this mans calumnies . See there whether I said not more for so much of Episcopacy , Liturgie and Ceremonies which I took to be lawful , than ever I have done since Bishops returned ? 2. But what doth he mean by [ sheltering my self in a storm in their tents ] ? I cannot imagine what , unless sense and truth at once forsook him ! When a storm fell on the Nonconformists , were their tents a likely place for shelter ? Had not the Conformists tents been likelier ? Did the Nonconformists shelter me ? From what , and how ? 3. And what hole was it that I came out of , with their Indulgence ? Are such men as this the Vindicators of Gods Truth against the Christian world , that pour out untruths at such a rate , in despight of the most publick notoriety of fact ? Do I need to tell the Reader ( only for the sake of youths and forreigners ) that when the Nonconformists cause was at the bar , when speaking had any room and hope , they set me in their forlorn , and engaged me ( with my Conscience and desire to have prevented that which I foresaw ) in the tasks of writing and speaking which would most exasperate and offend the Bishops ; till I was I think the first among them that was forbidden to Preach . I continued after that in London a year , where I never had place or flock , but was a stranger : sickness then forced me to remove into the Countrey . The Tents I was sheltered in , were Gods protection in my own habitation ; which if a hole I thought good enough for me . I Preacht to such as would hear me , till , being near the Church door , and the people numerous , Clergie-envy caused me to be sent to the common Gaol , among malefactors ; As soon as I was out , another warrant was put into the Officers hands to apprehend me again , and send me to Newgate for six months ; Upon which I removed my dwelling to the next Village out of the County : I refused none there that desired to hear me , of my Neighbours . The writings which he revileth , shew that I lived not idle ; And I think he could wish I had done less and spoken to fewer . I came not out of that hole of many months after the Indulgence was granted : I stayed on reasons of Self-denyal , because I would fore-stall no London Ministers , nor hinder their Auditories , and therefore resolved to stay till they were setled : I came on terms of far greater Self-denyal , to the great abatement of my health , ( to say nothing of my greater cost , ) which now hath again forced me at present to retire . You see now at what rate these men inform the world , and how far they are to be believed . As for his talk of [ Disgracing the Nonconformists ] it 's true in two senses . 1. As he and I disgrace Christianity by being so ignorant and bad : 2. Or if he mean not My own Nonconformity but his , ( even his Nonconformity to a great deal of truth and Christian duty and common honesty ( by concatenated falshoods ) , I have done my part ( when constrained ) to disgrace it . § . 15. [ Sometime a friend to Calvin , and then a greater to Arminius ] saith he . Answ . 1. Did he tell the Reader where by one ( in any words ) I contradict the other ? 2. But see the misery of a Sectarian spirit , that taketh it for a contradiction to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both ? He would as this inferreth , take it ill to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists both , to Independents and Presbyterians and Episcopal too . But that is to such as I , the greatest duty , which to him is a shameful contradiction : When I think none Christians but Anabaptists , I will be a friend to no other as such : Men of so little a Church , must have answerably little Love : Censoriousness is a friend but unto few . 3. But by this your friendship seemeth narrower than I thought it : I thought it had extended to all the Anabaptists But they are divided into [ Free-willers ] and [ Free-gracers ] as they call them , that is , into Calvinists and Arminians : and are you a friend but unto one part of them ? 4. But indeed Sir , the Controversies intended by you under these names , are not such as a man of my poor measure can fix his judgement in every young , and promise that it shall never change , nor that I can take it for a shame to grow any wiser in them , than heretofore , though perhaps your judgement changed not from your Childhood . And I hope ( if what I have written may be published ) to make it appear that such as you that speak evil of what you understand not , are the grievous enemies of the Churches of Christ , as to Truth , Holiness , and Peace , by your militant noise about Calvinism , and Arminianism , , stirring up contentions , and destroying Love , by making differences seem greater than they are ; and laying the Churches Concord and Communion and mens salvation upon such questions , as Whether the house should be built of Wood or Timber ? And is not this worthy of your zeal ? § . 16. He adds [ Sometimes a great Defender of the Parliament and their Cause , and then none more to renounce them and betraytor them for their pains . ] Answ . 1. Was there never but One Parliament and One Cause ? Perhaps you mean that the Parliament called 1640 and the Rump ( as called ) and the Armies Little Parliament , and Oliver , and the Army Council and all the rest of the Soveraigns were all One Parliament ? Or that to swear to the first Parliament , or fight for them , and to shut out and imprison them , and to dissolve them , as Usurpers , and to set up one chosen by — who knows whom — and to set up Oliver and his Son , and to pull him down again , and to set up the Rump again , and to pull them down and set up a Council of State , &c. were all one Cause ; And that one day it was Treason not to be for one Soveraign , and another day not to be against that , and for another . Your Army did not betraytor them , when they forced out one part as Traytors first , and thrust out the major part , after imprisoning and reproaching many worthy wise and religious men , and when they pulled down all the rest at last ? Had you or I more hand in these matters ? Whether you know your self I know not , but I am sure you know not me , nor what you talk of . § . 17. It followeth [ Sometimes a great Opposer of Tradition , and anon a great defender thereof . ] Answ . 1. If you take Tradition equivocally , you calumniate but by equivocation ; but if [ thereof ] mean [ the same Tradition ] your falshood hath not the cloak of an equivocation . Prove what you say by any words of mine ? It is between twenty and thirty years I think since I largely opened my judgement of Tradition , in the Preface to the second edition of my book called the Saints Rest , which I never changed since . If you will deny that your Father delivered you the Bible ( or any other ) or that the Church hath used both Bible and Baptism from the Apostles dayes till now , Let the reproach of such Tradition be your glory , if you will ; It shall be none of mine . But do you write a book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christs time to ours , and when you have done renounce and scorn it ? See Reader , how he valueth his own work ? § . 18. He addeth [ Sometimes a violent impugner of Popery , and yet at last who hath spoken more in favour of it ? ] Answ . Here again if by [ Popery ] and [ it ] you mean the same thing , You hold on the same course : Prove it true , and take the honour of once writing a true accusation . I have not hid my judgement about Popery , having written about seven or eight books against it in above twenty years time , by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgement . If you cannot , refuse not to blush . But I was and am a defender of that which is Popery and Antichristianity with you , the Church-membership , Covenant-interest and Baptism of Infants , and it 's like many more parcels of the Treasures of Christ , which you zealously rob him off , and give to Antichrist ; As too many Sectaries do , the greatest part ( I doubt more than nine parts of ten ) of his Kingdom or Church universal : And as Divines use to prove that carnal minds are enemies and haters of God , because they confess , honour and worship him both in Name , and in respect of many of his Attributes and relations and works , yet in respect of others they are averse to him ; so I would be a monitor to you , and such like Sectaries , to take heed of going much further , lest before you know what you do , while you honour Christs name , and cry up some of his Grace , and doctrines , you should really hate , oppugn and blaspheme him , and take Christ himself for Antichrist , and his Churches and servants for Antichristian . If you will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church , I think it will prove to be Christ himself . § . 19. Reader , How big a volume wouldst thou have me write in answering such stuff as this ? Tears are fitter than Ink , for such fearless , rash , continued , visible falshoods , to be deliberately published to the world as truths , by one that calleth himself a man , and a Christian , and seemeth zealous to new Christen most of the Christian world . Unless I should tire my self and thee . I must stop , and cease this noysome work : Only one charge more which runs through much of his book , I will answer , because it concerneth the cause it self . § . 20. He oft tells you that when I have called my book [ Plain Scripture proof ] I yet there and after contradict my self , by saying that the controversie is difficult ] and by saying that in the ancient Churches men were left at liberty to Baptize their children when they would . And 1. His very words prove that this is no contradiction : For these very words I will make plain to a boy of ten years old , and yet the world must know in print that he is not able to understand them , and that this is worthy the consideration of his proselytes . 2. My meaning I opened long ago , which he concealeth : The Proofs of Infants Church-membership are Plain : the proof therefore of their right to Baptism is plain though not in the same degree ? but there are objections of difficulty which may be brought against it , which every weak Christian ( nor Minister neither ) cannot answer . And the hardest is that which is little taken notice of by themselves , but I ( impartially ) opened in my Christian Directory . And is it a contradiction to say that a doctrine that hath Plain Proof , may be assaulted by difficult ob●ections ? And yet such as a sober Christian should not be changed by , unless on the same reasons he will forsake all Christianity , and his everlasting hopes : For I take the doctrine of the Souls Immortality to be such as may be Plainly proved : But truly I take it to be five degrees above the ability of this Writer , to answer solidly all that can be said against it . I take it to be Plainly provable that the Scripture is certainly true : And yet I take it to be quite above this confident mans ability well to solve all the difficulties objected ? were it but those poor ones of Benedictus . Spinosa in his late pestilent Tractatus Theologico-Politicus . I think I have plain proof that God is not the Author of sin , and man is not moved in it and all his acts as an engine by unavoidable necessitation : But I despair that ten years study more should inable this Writer , clearly to solve the objections of Hobbes or Camero about it . In a word , though we have Plain proof that Christ is the Son of God , I should be loth that the faith of this Nation should lie upon the success of a dispute about it , between a crafty Infidel and this self-conceited man. § . 21. And why should my impartiality in acknowledging the Churches liberty as to the time of Baptism , at first , be so unkindly received ? I meant not , nor said , that Christ had left it Indifferent and to their Liberty , but that they left one another at liberty herein : Because 1. The first and great work was in setling the Churches by converting Jews and Gentiles to the faith : And the Adult who were the active members , were they that the Apostles had most to do with , ( and therefore whose case is expresly spoken of . ) 2. Because it was a known thing that the Infants of Church-members had ever been Church-members and were in possession of that Relation when Christ and his Apostles set up Baptism . 3. And it was a granted case , that all Sanctified persons devoted themselves and all that they had to God ; and every thing according to its capacity : And therefore their Infants according to their capacity , which God himself had before expounded . 4. And it was never the meaning of Christ to lay so much on the outward washing , as many Papists and Anabaptists do : But as the uncircumcised Infants in the Wilderness were nevertheless Church-members and saved ; so when Infants were in the Covenant of God by the Parents true and known consent , their damnation was not to be feared , upon their dying unbaptized by surprize . 5. But yet obedience to God being necessary , many Parents hastned their childrens Baptism , at two or three dayes old . Others staid till the eighth day : others longer ; and multitudes had children that were in several degrees entred on the use of reason , when the Parents were converted , and it remained doubtful whether they were ( as to the Covenant ) at their Parents choice or their own : And to this day there want not those that think that Baptism was not instituted to be the ordinary initiating Sacrament of the children of Church-members , but only of Proselytes ; And that Christians Infants took their places in the Church of course , but Proselytes from without only were to be Baptized . Though this be an error , it is probable that there were some then , as well as now of that opinion . But nothing more occasioned ( as far as I can find ) the delay of Baptism , than the fear of the danger of sinning after it , especially of apostasie . All held that all sin past was pardoned in Baptism . And Heb. 6. and 10. and other texts , and the common doctrine of the Church made them think it a very perillous thing to sin wilfully after illumination and the acknowledgement of the truth . And therefore abundance delayed their own Baptism till age , and many were backward to Baptize their children , lest childish folly and youthful lusts , and worldly temptations , should draw them to trample upon the blood of the Covenant ; And on such accounts , all were not Baptized at one age . And divers that were Baptized at age upon their own conversion from Heathenism , were not suddenly so knowing , as to be acquainted with all the cases about their childrens rights , but must have a considerable time to learn. For it was ( be it spoken without offence to stricter men ) a General and Narrow sort of Knowledge which the Apostles and the Primitive Churches required in the adult as necessary to Baptism , yea when they had at last kept them long under Catechizing . For even in Augustines time , though all used the same words of Baptism , so few had a clear understanding of the very Baptismal form or words , that ( writing ( ubi supra ) de bapt . contr . Donat. ) he saith that as to the Meaning of those words not only the Hereticks , sed ipsi carnales parvuli Ecclesiae , si possent singuli diligenter interrogari , tot diversitates opinionum fortassis , quot homines numerarentur : Animalis enim homo non percipit , &c. Annon tamen ideo non integrum sacramentum accipiunt ? § . 22. There remaineth a Catalogue of my heynous errors which he hath put in the preface to his first edition , and in the end of the second , and which he and such as he have taught many honest weak people in London , both Anabaptists and Independents to talk frightfully and odiously of from one another behind my back . What should I say to him and them ? Shall I answer them that never speak or write to me ? Shall I take this mans accusation for a confutation or conviction ? Is so deadly an enemy of Antichrist conceited of a self-infallibility , or that I must take my faith or trust from Mr. Danvers , though not from the Church , Pope , or General Council ? If not , what did the man think that a recitation should do with me ? Did not I know what I had written till he told me ? § . 23. But it is others that he tells it to ▪ Those others will read my own words or , they will not ? If they will , I will not be so censorious of them as to think that they need any more to his frustration : If they will not , must I write another book to tell them what I have written in the former ? How shall I know that they will any more read the last than the first ? If Satan have so much power over them , that he can make them err , and lie and slander and backbite as oft as a man professing zeal for the truth , will be his instrument and messenger , it is not my writing more books that can save them . The end must tell them , whether I or they shall be the greater losers by it . § . 24. I have therefore but these two wayes now to take : 1. Whereas this man saith , that my doctrine seemeth heynous to every one of my Non-conforming brethren , and most Protestants , and that I have lost my self among my friends , I do demand as their duty and my right , the Means of my conviction and reduct●on from those brethren ( if any ) whom he doth not belie : I profess my self ready privately or publickly to give them an account of the reasons of all my doctrine , and thankfully to retract whatever they shall manifest to be an error . And I challenge any of them to prove that ever ▪ I refused to be accountable to them , or denyed a sober answer to their reasons , or refused to learn of any that would teach me , or to study as hard to know as they ? or that ever partiality , faction or worldly interest , bribed me to deal falsly with my conscience , and betray the truth . And if after this claim , they will be silent , I will take them for consenters , or if by backbiting only any will still notifie their dissent , I will take them for such as I take this writer , and in some respect worse though not in all . § . 25. II. My second remedy is , I will go willingly to School to Mr. D. and having said so much for the Learning , against the Disputing way , I will become his hearer and reader , if he have any thing to teach me , that savoureth of Truth and Modesty more than this noysome fardel doth which he hath published . And to that end I will here give him a Catalogue of the contrary opinions to mine , which I desire him solidly to prove . If he hold not the contrary doctrines , why doth he exclaim against mine , as heynous ? If he do hold the contrary to what I have with due and clear distinction and explication opened , ( and his Readers after the perusing of all my own words together be of his mind ) I then take these following to be their own opinions , and part of their Religion , which I desire them to make good , and teach them me by sufficient proof . CHAP. VIII . A Catalogue of some Doctrines of Mr. Danvers and the rest that with him accuse my Christian Directory , if indeed they hold the contrary to mine which they accuse ( as must be supposed by their accusation ) which as a Learner I intreat any of them solidly to prove . OF the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him ( The falshood of his inserting [ in a Popish Countrey in their way of Baptizing ] in that cited place which spake only of the Lutherans , I pass by as weary of answering such : But I. That it is a sin for any man ( supposing Infant Baptism a duty ) to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross , or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use , though he profess his own dissent and dissallowance of those ceremonies , and though he cannot lawfully have it done better , but must have that or no Baptism at all ? II. That in the ancient Churches of the second , third , and fourth ages , it had been better to be unbaptized than to use a white Garment in Baptism as they did , or to be anointed as then , or to taste Milk and Honey , though the Person offering his child to such Baptism , had professed his dissent as aforesaid ? III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second , third , and fourth , and following ages , who were Baptized thus ( Infant or adult , ) had no Baptism but what was worse than none : ( Though Church history certifie us that this use was so universal , that it 's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it , or refused it . ) ( By the way , it was but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear , * to foist in [ Peril of Law ] when I had not such a word or sense as Peril : As if you knew of no Obligation there but from Peril . ) IV. Your pag. 373. ed. 2. [ That anointing , using the white Garment , Milk and Honey , were Blasphemous rites , and Popish before Popery was existent ? or if otherwise , that All Christs Church was Popish then ? V. Your Pref. ed. 1. [ That Christs Ministers rightly ordained and dedicated to God in that sacred office , are not so much as Relatively holy as separated to God therein ? VI. That Temples , and Church Vtensils devoted and lawfully separated by man to holy uses , either are not justly Related to God as so separated , or though so separated and Related are in no degree to be called Holy ? VII . Your Pref. 16. [ That no Reverence is due to Ministers and Church utensils ? ] VIII . Ibid. [ To be uncovered in the Church ; and use reverent carriage and gestures there , doth not at all tend to preserve due reverence to God and his worship ? IX . Ibid. [ That the unjust alienation of Temples , Vtensils , lands , dayes , which were separated by God himself , is no sacriledge : no not to have turned the Temple of old , and the sacred things to a common use unjustly : nor the Lords day now . ( But thou that abhorrest Idols , dost thou more than commit Sacriledge ? Even teach men so to do , and say It is no Sacriledge ? no not when God himself is the separater and man the unjust alienater ? And yet is Infant-Baptism a sin ? ) X. Ibid. [ That it 's no sacriledge unjustly to alienate things justly consecrated and separated to God by man ( as Ministers , Lands , Vtensils , &c. ) ( Remember Ananias and Saphira . ) XI . Ibid. [ That it is a sin to call a Minister a Priest , though it be done in no ill design , nor with any scandal or temptation to error , and though he that useth the word profess that he doth it but as a translation of the Greek word [ Presbyter ] and as God himself doth Rev. 1.6 . and 5.10 . and 20.6 . and 1 Pet. 2. 5.9 . ( Question . Whether it is sinfully used in Scripture ? ) XII . Ib. [ Accordingly it is sin to use the word [ Altar ] for [ Table ] or the word [ Sacrifice ] for [ worship ] ( as thanksgiving &c. ) though with all the foresaid cautions , and though God so use them in the Scripture , 1 Pet. 2.5 . Heb. 13.15 , 16. Phil. 4.18 . Eph. 5.2 . Rom. 12.1 . Heb. 13.10 . Rev. 6.9 . and 8.3 , 5. and 16.7 . And that all the ancient writers and Churches sinned that so spake ? ] XIII . That no sober Christians should allow each other the Liberty of such phrases without censoriousness or breach of Charity and peace ] Ibid. pref . XIV . Ibid. [ It is a sin to set a Rail about the Communion Table though it be not done to any ill design nor with scandal , but only to keep dogs from pissing or dunging at it , and boyes from abusing it . XV. That in such case , yea though scandal be removed by the publick profession of the Church , it is a sin to come to such a railed table to communicate ; even when no sinful distance between the Clergie and Laity is intended . XVI . Ibid. [ Christians ought to censure and condemn each other , if one come to such a Table , or Receive kneeling , supposing it a lawful thing . ] XVII . Ibid. [ That it is a sin to keep a thankful remembrance of Gods mercy to his Church , by an anniversary day of solemnity , in giving them any Apostle , Martyr , or extraordinary instrument of his blessing , as some keep their birthdays , or wedding-dayes , or dayes of some great deliverance , and England the fifth of November ; Though it be not terminated in the honour of a Saint , but of God , nor made equal to the Lords day , nor kept otherwise than spiritually and piously ? XVIII . Ibid. [ That for a man that is against commanding the Abstinence of Lent , and against obeying such commands as an Imitation of Christ's forty dayes fasting , and in all cases of injury to our souls , bodies , or others ; yet to say that he is not able to prove it a sin to obey by meer abstinence , when the Magistrate peremptorily commandeth it , meerly in Commemoration , and not Imitation of Christ's fast , is a sin in him that saith it , though it be true : And consequently though it would do no harm to my self or others , I ought rather to die than to forbear flesh in Lent , if the King command it ? XIX . Ibid. [ That Church Musick ( and consequently singing which is the prime Musick ) is no help to any man in the service of God ? XX. Ib. [ That though he find it a help , it is sin for any man to use it ? XXI . That either Christ did not joyn with the Jews in worship which had Musick ( in the Temple ) or else he sinned in so doing ? XXII . That the experience of prejudiced self-conceited men , that know not what melody is , must be set against the experience of others so far as to deprive them of all such helps and mercies , as the other find no benefit by , ( As singing is now cast out of many Churches . ) XXIII . That it is no wrong to Ignorant Christians to put such whimsies and scruples into their heads ? XXIV . Ib. [ It is a sin to Vow Chastity for any man in the world , though it be with this exception or condition , [ Unless any thing shall fall out which shall make it a sin to me not to marry ] . And though under the most extraordinary necessities of avoiding marriage , he find such confirmation of his Resolutions needful ? XXV . Ib. [ That it is in no Case lawful to keep a Vow of Chastity , at least among the Papists ? And consequently whereas Christ saith , He that can keep this saying , Let him , It is every mans duty to break Chastity that hath once vowed it , though it were no duty , but a sin before . For doubtless Marriage is a sin accidentally to some , though not in its own nature , and far from being a duty to all ? But according to this doctrine , if a man were eighty years old , and utterly impotent , and unable to break his vow of Chastity if he would , he is bound to do it , which he cannot do , and to break his vow when he cannot break it ? or if an old mans marriage that hath no necessity , would undo himself and his ( former ) children , he is bound to marry , if he have but once vowed that he will not ; or at least he may do it ? ( For which of the contraries you chuse [ May or Must ] I am uncertain . ) XXVI . Ib. [ That either it was a sin to put Pictures in the Geneva Bibles , and a sin to have our Dutch Chimney bricks which contain all the history of the Gospel , or any other Image of Christ crucified wherever , or once to see such a Picture ; or else it is a sin to have any holy affection stirr'd up in our hearts by seeing it : so that though all things are sanctified and pure to the pure , and I may excite holy affections when I see but a worm or flower , or any creature , or a house , or any work of man , yea when I see the sins of the wicked , I may stir up thankfulness for grace ; yet if I see in a Chimney piece , or a Geneva Bible , or else-where , the Image of Christ crucified , it is a sin to excite holy affections thereupon ; Though the twenty one Cases which I have named as unlawful to use an Image in , be every one observed ( as the Cases of danger , scandal and all the rest . ) XXVII . The Image of Christ Crucified in the Imagination or mind of a Believer is a sin : Therefore it is a sin to think of a Crucified Christ , or to know Christ crucified , or to love Christ crucified as such : For it is impossible to think on him , know him or love him as crucified , without the Image of him on the mind : Therefore Paul determined to do nothing but sin , when he determined to know nothing but Christ and him crucified : and instead of anathematizing them that love him not , he should have anathematized or reproved all that love him as crucified . Do you and your Companions know that you are renouncing your Baptism , and Christianity , and the Cross of Christ , while you would rebaptize us all ? I charge it not on you as your meaning : But if it be not the downright consequence of the words of all my Religious backbiters , who say that the Image of Christ crucified befitteth not our minds or imaginations , but is a sin there , I have lost all my reasoning faculty , and know not what Man or Reason is . XXVIII . Ibid. & Ed. 2. p. 372. [ That the Ordination and Ministerial Office received by any that live in Communion with the Church of Rome , and consequently all their baptizings and other ministrations are not only sins but nullities : ( Though they were such as Bernard , Malachie , Patrick , Gerson , Ferus , Kempis , Gerard Zurphaniensis , &c. ) And so none of the English Nation had true baptism from their first Conversion by Augustine till the Reformation , but all died unbaptized and should have been baptized again : And so should all baptized by them in any Kingdoms of Europe or the World : and so Luther , Zuinglius , Martyr , Musculus , and the rest of our first Reformers , were never Christned , but all dyed unbaptized persons , and should have been baptized after their conversion . XXIX . Ib. That it were better have all Europe unbaptized ( Infants and adult ) than such as Bernard , Ferus , Cassander , &c. should baptize them , though they had leave to protest against all that is sinful in it , and were put upon no sinful promises , professions , or acts themselves . XXX . Ib. That it is a sin for those in any Country that can have no other , to consent that a Papist Priest do teach a Child to Speak or to Read , or to Write , or teach him Musick , Arithmetick , Geometry , Latine , Greek or Hebrew , Logick , or Grammar , or any Art , though but such as Labourers get their daily bread by . XXXI . Ib. That it is a sin for those in Italy , or any Kingdom that can have no other , to let a Popish Priest teach their Children the Creed , Lords Prayer and Ten-Commandments which all Christians are agreed in : but it 's better that they never learned a word of the Bible , or Christian-Faith , than learn it of such a Priest : so sinfully did Bishop Usher make the motion to the Priests in Ireland , that Protestants and they might joyn in teaching the barbarous people the Creed and common principles of Religion . XXXII . Ib. That it is a sin to hear a Popish Priest read Gods word or any good book , though it were a Protestants , or one of the Ancient Fathers : or to hear him speak the truest Doctrine , though in a Country where it can no other way be heard or learned . XXXIII . Ib. That in such a Country where there is no other , it is a sin to joyn with one of them in any Prayer how good soever , though craving a blessing on our meat , or in a Family , or elsewhere ; even in the Lords Prayer . XXXIV . Ib. That it is necessary to Salvation to believe that the Pope is Antichrist , and so no man , woman , or child can be saved that believeth it not . And so since Antichrist arose , we have a new Article in our Creed : Even for those that know not what the Pope is , whether male or female , flesh or fish . XXXV . Ib. That it is a sin to read any good book in the Church besides the Scripture , any Chapter in the Apocrypha , any Homily or Sermon , though written by an Anabaptist , and though we declare what it is , and mention it for no other end but what it is written for , as we cite Authors as witnesses : ( And yet it is lawful for Mr. D. to publish many ( falsly ) in Print . ) XXXVI . Ib. That it is a sin to read a Prayer in the Church , though it were the Prayer of Christ John 17. or of Moses or others in the Psalmes , or any others . XXXVII . Ib. That if one pray Mr. Danvers to pray for him , it is Idolatry , or if the people or sick pray the Minister to pray for them , or Children their Parents ; or if one should do so by an Angel that should appear to him ; or to a Saint or Angel unseen , imagining that he were present ; this is not only Superstition and so sinful , but also Idolatry ; which is giving Gods proper worship to a creature : And consequently it is the proper worship of God only , to pray him to pray for us to himself . XXXVIII . Ib. That it is a sin to bow the knee at the naming of Jesus , though we renounce all in it that is superstitious and scandalous , and bow equally at the name of God , Jehovah , Christ , &c. XXXIX . Ib. That it is a sin to stand when the Gospel is read , though we be never so weary of sitting , and stand equally at the reading of all the rest of the Scripture , or at Sermon without distinction ; so heynously did the Vniversal Church sin for many hundred years in their long standings ; and so sinful a thing it is to hear in a Church or Meeting-place that hath no seats , unless we sit on the ground . XL. Ib. That it is a sin to kneel while the Ten-Commandments are read , though it be by women whose custom that posture is ( upon a boss ) through the rest of the daies exercise ; and though it be never so openly declared that we take them not for a prayer , nor do it to any ill signification or intent . XLI . Iib. That he sinneth who doth not condemn the Universal Church of Christ for many hundred years ( of the greatest antiquity that we have any records of since the Apostles ) for their worshipping with their faces towards the East ; Though he should himself dislike that practice and never use it , nor consent to have it used . XLII . Ib. That it is a sin to say , that any children of any wicked men in the world , have any guilt of any of their nearer Parents sins , but only of Adams : ( And consequently it must be held that God unjustly threatned and punished any such children for their Parents sin , from the daies of Cain , Cham , Pharaoh , Ishmael , Esau , Achan , Gehezi , till the daies of that Generation threatned Matth. 23. And also that no man receiveth any pravity from Adam neither , because it must pass to him through his next Parents and be theirs , and he receiveth none that is theirs : And so all Nations are justified against all guilt of any Parents sin but Adam , and warranted to deny to confess any such guilt , or to be beholden to Christ or mercy for the pardon of it , though David , Daniel and Nehemiah did otherwise . ) I say again , either Mr. D. and his like do really hold the contraries of the assertions of mine which he thus notifieth as heynous errors , or not : If not , he raileth against his Conscience in hypocrisie : If yea , then these propositions which I have named to you are the contraries to mine . And it is so cursed a thing to add two and fourty New Commandments to the Law of God , that I who think them to be no better , do again and again desire him , to give me the full proof of all these strange Commandments , and tell me where they are written ( if I have overlookt them . ) If this cannot be obtained , I call to his imitators and my backbiters to let me know , whether really they will own all these , and give me leave to tell the World , and the Ages to come , that these were their Doctrines , for the love of which they whispered or clamoured against me . But here he stops and pittieth the Reader , and referreth them to my Book it self : And I will joyn with him and add , that the Reader that will think that he knoweth what I hold or wrote , by this and such like mens citations or reports , and will not read the Book it self , and all in it together that concerneth the questioned subject , before he judge ; I take not my self bound to write more books to tell him what I wrote in the former , nor do I think that I am otherwise obliged to rectifie his Error , than by Prayer or Counsel , endeavouring to bring him to some tenderness of Conscience , fear of God and sobriety of mind . But his strength lieth in frightful exclamations . [ O was ever the like yet heard , &c. to palliate abominations , and reconcile us to Idolatrous Popish names , as Altar , Priests , Sacrifices , &c. and their baptism . ] And yet he might have known that all these words are oft used by the ancienter sort of the holy Pastors of the Churches after the Apostles , and I remember not that ever one Christian was against it , or scrupled the use of them : And I before shewed that they are used by the Holy-Ghost in Scripture , whom I dare not accuse of Idolatrous names , or reconciling us to them . Whether all the Papists baptism administred and received be nullities , and all Papists to be rebaptized , and all Protestants that were baptized by Papists ? are questions which I will not be so vain as to dispute with one that talketh at this mans rate . But yet we have not done with the high charges of his Preface : He saith [ Oh! were not those twenty Queries , so much against the self-evidencing authority of the Scriptures , in his Admon . p. 142. in favour of Tradition a heynous provocation , to say no more of them ? ] Answ . It seems they were so to you . But really , did you read that book and the other to Mr. Bagshaw , and yet not fear to follow him and out-do him in notorious untruths , after so full a conviction and warning as was given him ? Think on it , and again cry out [ But alas ! whereto will not men run left to themselves ? ] I there professed and proved to your friend Mr. Bagshaw that I was for , and wrote for the self-evidencing authority of the Scripture , and it is untrue that those twenty Queries or any one of them is against it· But seeing you think otherwise , if indeed you hold the contrary to the assertions implied in those twenty Queries , I am not at the end of the Catalogue of your strange Doctrines : If you and my revilers own them , so will not sober men : e. g. XLIII . [ Every Christian must see the Copies of the Scripture written by the Prophets and Apostles own hands : Or at least must understand the Transcripts in the Original tongues . ] XLIV . [ God hath promised unerring infallibility to all Scribes in the world that write out the Bible , and all Printers that print it : Or at least to some of them , and we may be certain who those are . ] XLV . [ Though the several Copies have a multitude of differences , it is certain none of them are erroneous , or mistaken . ] XLVI . [ Those men and women that understand not Hebrew or Greek may be certain only by seeing a Hebrew and Greek Bible , without a Translators help , that every word in it is the word of God. ] XLVII . [ Either he that will be sure which Copy is without mis-writing , must first see all the Copies in the world that differ ; or else if he never see but one ( or few ) he may be certain that it is right in the words in which it differeth from all the rest which he never saw . ] XLVIII . [ No corrupt or mis-written Copy of the Scripture can come to a true Believers hands : Or if it do , he can infallibly tell us the Errata . ] XLIX . A true Believer that never saw the Originals can by seeing a translation judge of all the diverse readings in the Originals . L. The Translators are either all infallible in translating ▪ or else a true Believer is certain which of them is , and which not , and which translation among many faulty ones is faultless . LI. He that never saw all Translations , but perhaps but one , can by that one tell that it is truer than all the differing ones , which he never saw . LII . All this of Copies and Translations is known to Believers either by Prophetical Revelation from Heaven , or by the self-evidencing demonstration of the Copy and Translation which he seeth . LIII . [ Every true Believer without being ever told it by man , can tell by the self-evidencing demonstration of the words , that the Canticles and the Books of Judges , Ruth , Chronicles , Jonah , are Canonical , and that the wisdom of Solomon , Baruck , Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans , Clemens to the Corinthians , &c. are not Canonical — LIV. Either God will give faith to no one that cannot read ( among all the illiterate Kingdoms of the world where the Gospel is to be preached , ) or else all that cannot read , may without ever reading a word be certain by self-evidence which readings in the differing Copies , and which Translations are true or false , and which books and verses and sentences are Canonical and which not . LV. Either God hath promised that every illi●●●●te Christian ( that cannot read ) shall hear 〈◊〉 one else read every word of the Bible to him ( in Originals and Translations , or one ) that he may judge ; or else by the self-evidence that person that cannot read , nor never heard half the Bible read , can certainly tell what words are truly or falsly written , or Translated , without ever hearing them . LVI . When the greatests Learned Linguists differ about a Lection , or Translation , ( as the Septuagint , &c. ) ( such as Lud. Capellus , Usher , Buxtorf , Bootius , De Dieu , L' Empereur , Walton , &c. ) or when such as Luther , Althamer , &c. differ about a Canonical Book , ( as James ) it is because they see not that self-evidence , which every Christian may see , that cannot read nor was ever told it , that one part , ( if not more ) do herein err , while their judgements are contrary . None of these fifty six are Articles of my Faith , nor Gods Commandments ( that I can find . ) I say not that these ignorant Revilers hold all these ; but I say that He ( and They ) that will openly exclaim against the contrary assertions as heynous errors , or tell about among the receivers of false reports , that I hold dangerous errors for saying the contrary to these , doth either perswade men that all these are his Opinions , or else that he is an impudent Hypocrite , in reviling known truth as heynous error ; or else a rash Calumniator that dare reproach or speak evil of that which he understandeth not , nor will not , so much as by reading my plain words , be at the labour to understand . Perhaps some better minded person will say , It casteth poor Christians into perplexity to hear such doubts about the Scripture readings and translations , were they not better concealed ? Answ . They are not to be talkt of unseasonably to uncapable persons : They are not to be told the ignorant instead of a Catechism : But they are all publickly known to the learned world long ago , and told the ignorant people by the Papists to ill ends : And if any one will perswade you to hold the contrary , and make you believe that all or any of these absurdities and falshoods are the true Protestant Religion , or any part of it , and that they that hold the contrary are Popish , it is time to vindicate the Protestant Religion and all sober godly Protestants , from the scorn of such imputed dotages . But this is the unhappy fruit of overdoing : There are some men among us , so overwise and overrighteous in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures , that they would perswade us , that it is sufficient to expound it self without a teaching Expositor , and to preach it self without a Preacher , and ( by consequence from their generals ) to Write and Print it self without a Writer or Printer , and to bring it self down from the Apostles to every man without the hand or tongue of man , and to preserve it self from corruption without the care of man , and to translate it self without a Translator ; And that all Printed Sermons , or books of Divinity , all Catechisms , all Sermon notes for memory , all forms of Prayer , yea the dividing the Bible into Chapters and Verses , and Printing Contents , and Citations or References ( much more the Geneva Notes and Pictures ) are all sinful additions to the Word of God. As if the sufficiency of the Statutes of the Land lay in Keeping , Printing , Transcribing , Pleading and Expounding themselves , without the use of Scribes , Clerks , Lawyers , Law-books or Judges . I am well assured that God needeth not our Lies to his Glory , and that truth and falshood do so ill agree , that though falshood may steal a cloak from truth , yet truth will never be beholden to falshood for friendship and defence ; And if ever Lies pretend any kindness or service to the truth , it is but treacherously to supplant it , and will turn to its disservice and injury at last . In a word , All the Devils in Hell , and all the Consistory at Rome , could not easily find out a more effectual way ( as far as I can understand ) to turn multitudes to Popery , than 1. By calling truth and sober Principles Antichristian , Popery and Idolatrous : 2. And by describing the Religion of the enemies of Popery , as made up of Lies and Dotages : 3. And by falling all together by the ears , and breaking into a multitude of Sects , and condemning each other as unmeet to be communicated with ; and so making men believe that they must be Papists or distracted Dotards , whose self-conceitedness in Religion hath made them mad : I say , nothing that I know of doth tend more to multiply Papists , than this ; ( unless I may except the way of sensuality and violence , murdering some and drawing others by fleshly and worldly motives : ) Nor do I know any thing in the world , that more quieteth the Consciences of Persecutors and Scorners , in all that they do and say against us , and hindreth them more from all conviction and repentance . Mr. Danvers endeth his book , Ed. 1. with a smart reflection on Mr. William Allen and Mr. Lamb for forsaking the cause of Anabaptistry and Separation which they had written for : And I will end mine with a few words concerning them , concluding with a free and faithful Admonition to Mr. Danvers , to consider whether He or They should be most earnestly called to Repentance , and most speedily practise it . CHAP. IX . REader , having the following vindication of Mr. Allen put into my hand , I think it not unmeet upon this occasion to undeceive some who to render his example in receding from the way of Separation wherein he was sometime engaged upon the account of Infant-baptism , the less imitable , and his endeavours to draw off others , the less successful ; have given out that he did but turn with the times for worldly ends when the King came in . Whereas I can bear him witness that that return was made by him the year before the coming in of the King , as did sufficiently appear to me both by Letters which then passed between him and my self about that affair , and also by his book called A Retractation of Separation , published by him that same year . Which Book I would entreat the sober Reader to get and lend to some of the separating mind : they will find no temporizing or formality in it , but a spirit of Christian love and peace . And if the reasons in that Book and in his perswasive to peace and unity since published , be such as none of the Separatists can confute or stand before , they will have no reason to impute the Authors change to carnal reason or worldly interest . I question not but experience after trial , which is wont to make teachable men wiser , put him upon reviewing the grounds of his practice , and so had a great hand in that alteration which he made . And I would have those who account it a disparagement to a man to alter his Judgement at any time , to tell us at what age we come under that law , when we must grow no wiser nor no better . And what I say of Mr. Allens alteration of his judgement , I must say also of Mr. Lambs , whom those that easily judge before they know , have accused also as turning with the times , when as on my knowledge his change was in 1658. or the beginning of 1659. For by letters I did sollicite him to that alteration and received his answers , sooner than I knew of Mr. Allens change : And I perceive that Mr. Lambs words and example are slighted by very many , upon two accusations , 1. That he is run into the other extream of overmuch conformity : 2. That he is over hot . As to the first , my distance maketh me a stranger to his mind and practice . But as long as he conformeth not as Ministers do , but to that which belongeth to a private man , what doth he more than Mr. Tombes hath largely written for ? And Mr. Nye hath written to prove it lawful to hear Conformists in the Parish Churches , and for the Magistrates to appoint publick Teachers for the people . 2. And as to the second ( not justifying my own earnestness , much less others which I am not acquainted with ) to calm the minds of the offended I may well say , 1. That it is no wonder if a man that is naturally of a warm and earnest spirit , do shew it most when he thinks that he speaks for God , and Truth , and the Church , and mens Souls . 2. That it is no wonder if a man that was drawn himself so deep into the guilt , as to be a Teacher of an Anabaptists Church and to write for them , be an earnest expresser of his Repentance when he is recovered , and earnestly desirous to save others from the snares in which he was intangled , and to do as much for Truth , Unity and peace , as ever he did against it . What followes are Mr. Allens own words . Worthy Sir , I Having some intimation that you are about to make some return to the Author of a late Treatise of Baptism , do apprehend that if you think fit to Print this following Paper at the end of your Book , you may do the good office of removing a stumbling-block , at which some are too apt to dash their foot , and thereby also further caution men against being misled by giving too much credit to the quotation of Authors , as managed by that Treatisor . In reading a Treatise of Baptism of the first Edition , Penned by H. D. I observed that in the two last pages of his Postscript , he mentions two discourses that were publi●hed about one and twenty years ago ▪ the one by my self and the other by another ; and saith that both of us are gone back to that which therein we call will-worship and Idolatry . Indeed I am sorry that that author should put me upon any necessity of reflecting so much upon him in vindicating my self , as to tell the world that upon this occasion I having twice reviewed that Book of mine , did not find so much as the mention of either of those two words will-worship or idolatry , upon any occasion whatsoever . Nor am I conscious to my self of ever being so absurd as once to think that to be idolatry , which he most untruly saith I call so in that Book . That cause doubtless whatsoever it is , is little beholding to such an Advocate as thinks to reconcile men to it by abusing dissenters . As for the alteration I have made , I gave the world an account of the reasons and grounds of it , in my Retractation of Separation , published in the year 1659. which was before the turn of times , and in my perswasive to Peace and Vnity , since published . And if this Author could have solidly discovered the insufficiency of those reasons and grounds to justifie such an alteration and my present practice , he would have done his cause better service in my opinion , than he hath done in his Treatise by labouring to support it by a misrepresentation of persons and their opinions . As for me , I can truly say I have had great satisfaction and peace in my own mind , touching the alteration I have made upon those grounds , not only at other times , but even then also when I have been near unto death in my own apprehension . As for the other person he mentions with me , I suppose he may e're long give the world an account of that alteration he also is charged with as great fault . Will. Allen ▪ An Admonition to Mr. Danvers . SIR , YOur vehement importunity having greatly injured me , by occasioning the loss of some of my time ( who have none to spare ) upon this writing , which else would have been needless ; you must bear with me while I desire you , sometime alone , to answer these Questions seriously to your Conscience . Quest . 1. Whether the untruths in matter of fact which you confidently publish , be not of so stupendious a magnitude , as should have affrighted the Conscience of a Turk or Pagan ? When no less than four whole Bodies of men are so slandered by you , the Donatists , the Novatians , the Old Brittains , and the Waldenses , each containing , it 's like many hundred thousands : And when so many whole Books ( not particular sentences only ) are falsified accordingly ? 2. How great a number would your untruths appear , were they all gathered and enumerated to you ? When in all the lines which I have examined I have met with so few that are not guilty of them ? 3. When you accuse my Admonition to Mr. Bagshaw , and thereby shew that you read it , should not the eviction of fourscore undeniable untruths , in matter of fact , have been a warning to you to avoid the like ? 4. Whether you do not more by such notorious scandal to dishonour your self and all that are such , and hinder your own successes , than many writings against you could have done ? 5. Whether you do not scandalously tempt men to justifie the contempt of Tender Consciences , and what is done and said against them by many publick Revilers on the other extream , when your Conscience pretending tenderness can swallow such Camels , while it cannot endure our Infant-blessings ? 6. Whether men can judge it probable that such voluminous notorious Forgers and Slanderers , have so much more illumination than all other Christians , as to be meet men to call all the Christian world almost to be new Christned , and to unchristen almost all for about thirteen hundred years ( to leave out the controverted time ? ) 7. Would you be believed in other things that can deliberately , in two Editions , do thus ? 8. Is it like that God will bless such unmanly scandals , to the Churches good ? ( unless as sin by overruling providence may occasion good . ) Are these likely means to propagate truth ? 9. What is the matter that men that can do all this , cannot Conform ? What durst I not subscribe to , if I durst do all this ? 10. Is it not a dishonour to your rebaptized Churches to be so polluted , and to have so loose or partial a discipline , as to suffer such publick scandals as these : and to retain such a member as you , and not bring you to repentance or excommunicate you ? Have our worst Parish Churches many greater scandals ? If pride , partiality and passion will not let your Conscience work upon these things , but you will turn them into gall instead of repentance , at least I offer them to the Consideration of others , to prevent or remedy their infection . And remember ( which you have told the world now in Print ) that you sent your Bookseller to me , to know what I had to say against your first Edition , before you published the second ; And I have here partly told you what : I was not so idle as to answer your Reasons , knowing how little a part they are of what Mr. Tombes hath said more largely : And that I answer him at all , is long of you , who would not let me hold my peace . I heartily desire your Recovery from the unthankful error , and your Repentance for the sinful means of propagating it , and for your injury to our early Rights and blessings . The Third Part : OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Danvers REPLY TO Mr. WILLES : Detecting his impenitent proceeding in false Accusation , in hope of his Repentance , and the undeceiving of others , and to warn this Age to take more heed of the common sin , of HASTY RASH JUDGING of things which they have not throughly examined , partially taking them on their Leaders trust . By Richard Baxter . LONDON , Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson . 1675. A PREMONITION . REader , there are two stumbling-blocks to be taken out of thy way , which I had rather have had no occasion to mention . The first is the Name and Authority of that very worthy and excellent man , Doct. T. Barlow , S. Th. Prof. in Oxford , which Mr. D. over and over citeth as for his cause . Of which till he think meet to speak for himself I only mind thee that , 1. It is a secret Letter to Mr. T. which they cite . 2. That it is unlikely that he that subscribeth the Articles and Liturgie of the Church of England , is against Infant-baptism , when the Art. 27. saith , The Baptism of Young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ . ] II. There is another worthy and eximious Doctor of the same University ( Doct. Th. Tullie ) who having thought meet in a Latine Treatise of Justification to endeavour at large ( in a zeal for Orthodoxness no doubt ) to confute my supposed errors ( in my Aphorisms about twenty two years ago revoked ; taking no notice of the many Treatises since written by me on that subject , but only of a late Epistle to Mr. Allens Book , ) he hath also thought good to warn young men to take heed that they do not rashly receive my Theology as bringing forth novel paradoxes , because I hold some guilt in Children of their nearer Parents sins : exclaiming [ O caecos ante Theologos quicunque unquam fuistis ! ] It seemeth that this Famous Learned man knew not , that this was Augustins judgement ( and many another ancient and modern Writer's , ) and that he is less for the Letany than I ( that subscribe or declare not full assent ) who heartily pray , Remember not Lord our offences , nor the offences of our fore-Fathers , &c. This having some respect to the subject of this Book , I thought meet here to give you notice , that if God , will I hope in time to give the world yet fuller satisfaction on both these subjects , ( Justification , and secondary Original sin : ) Though I thought my unanswered Disputations of Justification , and other Treatises had fully done the first : And the publishing of some old Papers of Original sin , I think will fully do the other . OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Danvers REPLY TO Mr. WILLS . CHAP. I. The frightful Aspect of his Reply . § . 1. MY Answer to Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers being written about the same time as my Epistle to Mr. Wills his book , hath since then been detained in the Printers hand , whose delay hath allowed me the sight of Mr. Danvers Reply to Mr. Wills , and the opportunity of animadverting on it , before mine is come abroad . And upon my most impartial consideration it reneweth the grief of my heart to think of these evils which it sets before me . § . 2. 1. That the souls of poor Christians should be under the Temptations of such writings and teaching as here we find : Where such untruths in matter of fact are still justified with such a face of confidence , and divulged as for God , and for the souls of men , that most ignorant persons may be tempted to think that Modesty and Charity require them to believe , that they are real truths , it being a harsh unmanly thing to judge that such a person can possibly be so hardened , as to stand so boldly to all these things , which have such publick historical evidence , if they were all downright falshoods . And it is a hard task for a writer to be put to answer a Christian and a Gentleman as Mr. Danvers doth Mr. Wills , Repl. pag. 120. [ Know that hence you have a further discovery of the great unfaithfulness and want of conscience in the Author , for daring thus to abuse the world with a Cheat , and that which he knoweth to be a meer forgery of his own ] And pag. 122. [ Let it be judged whether he hath not injuriously belied Osiander , belied Cluniacensis , belied Peter Bruis , belied the truth , which by this forgery he would cover and hide ; abused the world , belied and abused me — But much more fear his own conscience by this piece of folly and falshood . ] To be thus at [ Thou liest ] and [ Thou liest ] is an unsavoury work ; Yea in so few lines to give the Lie five times at least . But for an ignorant Reader to believe what this Author hath done till he needs must , is yet far harder . Though we say , He that will swear , will lie , and therefore we hardly believe a swearer ; yet if a man with many hundred bloody oaths should assert many particulars of publick cognisance , we are ready to think it inhumane to suspect that the man is so inhumane as thus to swear if some of them were not true . Alas for the poor Church of Christ , that must have such sore temptations ! How shall they be withstood ! § . 3. 2. And how sad is it that a Christian man professing not only Truth and Godliness , but so much of these as to be above Communion with such as we , should ever degenerate into such a thing as his present writing doth discover ! O what need have we to lay to heart that of Paul , Rom. 11. be not high-minded but fear ? and to learn over and over , Jam. 3. and Christ's words to the Sons of Thunder , ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of ? § . 4. And alas , that ever the bitter voluminous Reproaches of the zeal of the present age , should have such a scandal or stumbling block laid in their way , to harden them in the justification of their reproaches ! as if our Zeal were the Cause or Cover of such heinous sins : Woe to the world because of offences , and woe to them by whom they come ! § . 5. 4. But what a tremendous warning is this against the spirit of unwarrantable separation , or true Schism , when the same person shall venture upon all that is here written by him , who yet taketh our Infant Baptism for a meer Nullity , and the Christian world that hath no other to be uncapable of the Church-Communion of such as he ? Me-think this is a Pillar of Salt. I well remember that one of the means of keeping my ancient Flock in Concord , was the terror of these horrid opinions and wayes which the two or three that deserted us , fell into . CHAP. II. His impenitent false allegation of witnesses against Infant Baptism : Tertullian , &c. specially Wickliff . § . 1. I have before said , that I have said so much out of Scripture and Antiquity , for Infants Church-membership and Baptism , to which I have yet seen no Answer that should satisfie an impartial man , either from Mr. Tombes , Mr. Danvers , or any other , that I will not lose time and labour in replying to their frivolous exceptions . And here I meddle directly but with the matter of fact , because by ostentation of history , Mr. D. would seduce the ignorant into the belief of gross untruths . I began with Tertullian , who is his first witness , in his Catalogue , reprinted here in his reply . § . 2. And why have we no satisfactory answer to these things so oft replyed ? 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism was then in use : And it is the matter of fact that we are searching after ? 2. And doth he think that Antichrist was before Tertullians time ? 3. The opinion of Tertullian seemeth not at all to be against the Lawfulness of Infant Baptism , in general ; but against the eligibleness of it in case of no apparent danger of death . For I have oft proved that the judgement of that age , and some following was , that none should be compelled to be Baptized , or to Baptize their Infants , but they should themselves be chusers of the time . For the conceit of the absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation , came in afterwards . And when the seed of the faithful are Holy , and in Gods Covenant or Promise , upon the Parents Mental dedication of them to God , and so in a state of salvation , no wonder if they were not so hasty and peremptory for the sudden Investiture into the Christian Church state , when they took it to be but the publick solemnization of a Covenant , really made and valid before . And as Nazianzene is for Infant-Baptism ( long after ) in case of danger , but else for staying three or four years , till they can speak : so Tertullian seemeth to prefer delay for such conveniencies as he mentioneth . 4. And if Mr. D. doubt of this , let him tell me why he saith , cunctatio utilior . 5. And giveth the reason from the inconvenience to the Sponsors . 6. And why he also perswadeth the unmarried and young Widdowes to delay their Baptism , till they are married , or grow corroborate to continencie , lest temptation carry them to sin ; And maketh this case of the like reason with that of Infants . Did he think that it was flatly unlawful for maids and young widdows to be Baptized ? or only less safe , and eligible , except in danger of death ? The case is plain . 7. And whether he like his other reason , Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum ? And whether Tertullian here do not tell us that he took those Infants that were Baptized to receive thereby solemn Remission of sin , if they had any sin ? If he thought they had none , we have little reason to follow his opinion . 8. Whether his own words plainly shew not what I have said of him , that it was ( as Constantine , and multitudes delayed Baptism ) for fear of falling afterwards , which they thought most dangerous [ si qui pondus intelligant Baptismi , magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem : Fides integra secura est de salute ] And lib. de Anima Tertullian saith , Apostolos ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait , tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina — Omnis Anima in Adam censetur , donec in Christo recenseatur : See the rest there for Infants birth holiness . § . 3. His renewed reproaches of Cyprian , as having Antichristian doctrine , and his renewed questioning whether there were ever such a Council as that at Carthage mentioned , are things so audacious and gross that they need no further answer . pag. 90. § . 4. And his citation of Austin pag. 94. [ that which had not been instituted in Councils , &c. ] is nothing against this authority , or to disprove its Apostolical traduction ; For it is easie for him to see , 1. That it was not whether Infants should be Baptized that was the question , but whether it should be done before the eighth day ? 2. That this Council was so far from Instituting Infant Baptism , that it was never brought into doubt or question among them , but taken as the unquestioned practice of the Church . But O that such as Mr. D. would give over honouring Antichrist so far ( and rejoicing and hardning the Papists ) as to make such as Cyprian teachers of Antichristian doctrine ; and Antichrist to have been the Author of Infants Christening before Cyprian and Tertullians time ? The Papists owe such adversaries thanks . § . 5. Pag. 104. He boasts of forty more against Infant Baptism cited by him , as not yet humbled for his abuse . And because Mr. Wills by mistake granted him Adrian and Hincmare , he seemeth to believe himself the more confidently , as if they had indeed been against Infant Baptism : of which before . § . 6. Pag. 105. He reciteth his false story of Berinus , of which before . § . 7. Pag. 106. He reciteth his falsification of the Bishop of Apameae . And turneth us for his proofs to some book oft called the Dutch Century Writers , and the Dutch Martyrologie : I suppose both Novel and Anabaptist Authors ; And he may as well turn us over to our neighbour Anabaptists to tell us what is written in the ancient Historians and Doctors , when we have the books themselves before us . § . 8. Pag. 106 , 107. He impenitently repeateth his slander of Wickliffe , referring us to his profs p. 283 , &c. Where having before falsly told us that he wrote another book called Trialogia besides his Dialogues ( when it is the same book that is called Trialogus in the M. S. and Dialogus in the printed Copy , as he may see by many citations out of the Trialogus in Bishop Vsher , de success . Eccles . which are all in the Dialogus ) he tells us of a great many of Wickliffes words to other purposes , and cannot bring one line or word in which he denyeth Infant-Baptism : But only 1. The lying accusations of his adversaries to that end , and 2. His own words which deny two Popish tenents . 1. That Baptism saveth all ex opere operato ; When he proveth contrarily ( of young and old ) that where Grace concurreth , it saveth , and else not . 2. That Infants unbaptized are damned ; which in charity he thinks is to be denyed : And what 's this against their Baptism ? § . 9. Yea Wickliffe expresly asserteth Infant-Baptism , Dialog . li. 4. c. 11. I will give the Reader Mr. Danvers words and his together . Mr. D. Reply , p. 106 , 107. That Wickliffe denyed Infant-Baptism , I produced so much evidence to prove it , from pag. 283. to 289. demonstrating that he not only affirmed that Believers were the only subjects of Baptism , but withal that children are not Sacramentally to be Baptized : and what can be more express evidence in the case ? And Treat . ed. 2. p. 283. That Believers are the only subject of Baptism , as appeareth in his eleventh Chap. of his Trialog . And p. 287. as a Lollard he denyeth Infant-Baptism . Whether Mr. D. ever saw his cited book I know not : But judge of the mans credit by the words : He cites the eleventh Chap. not telling us of which book . But it is the fourth book where the matter is handled as followeth . Wickliffe Trialog . l. 4. Cap. 11. Et primo videamus ubi baptismus in Evangelio stabilitur : Nam lege Mat. ult . quomodo Christus mandavit suis Apostolis , Ite , docete , &c. et hinc Philippus baptizans Eunuchum Act. 8. prius instruxit eum in fide — et propter hanc formam verborum Christi Mat ult . Ecclesia nostra adducit fideles pro Infante qui discretionem non attigerat respondentes : et tales compatres communiter faciunt , quod filii sui quos de baptismo elevant , sint in Oratione dominica et symbolo instructi : et alii qui discretionem attigerant , dum instruuntur in fide Christi , ante suum baptismum vocantur Catechumeni : Hoc autem sacramentum est tam necessarium viatori , quod Christus dicit Nicodemo , Joh. 3. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua , &c. Ex tanta itaque authoritate fidei Scripturae sunt fideles generaliter baptizati : et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona fidelis i● necessitatis articulo poterit baptizari — Nec refert sive immergantur semel vel ter ; sive aquae super capita sua effundantur : sed faciendum est secundum consuetudinem loci quem quis incolit , tam in uno ritu legitimo quam in alio : Quia certum est quod corporalis baptizatio sive lotio modicum valet , nisi adsit lotio mentis per spiritum sanctum , à peccato originali vel actuali . Hoc est enim Principium in hac fide , quod quicunque rite baptizatus fuerit , baptismus delet quodcunque peccatum invenerit in homine baptizando . Et quia ad delationem peccati requiritur satisfactio , et non potest fieri satisfactio pro peccato nisi per mortem Christi , ideo dicit Apostolus Rom. 6. Quicunque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu , in morte ejus baptizati sumus . ALITH . Sed dic rogo clarius quomodo Christus qui tantum odivit signa sensibilia , tantam necessitatem salvationis posuit in hujusmodi lotione : Videtur enim derogare divinae liberalitati atque potentiae , quod Deus non posset intercedere toto merito suo atque passione , salvare Infantem , vel adultum fidelem , nisi vetula vel alio viante baptizetur communiter infideli : similiter , delato Infante fidelium ad ecclesiam , ut secundum Christi regulam baptizetur , et deficiente aqua vel requisitis aliis , stante pia intentione totius populi , interim mortuo naturaliter , nutu Dei , videtur grave damnationem Infantis hujusmodi definire specialiter , cum nec infans iste , nec populus peccavit ut taliter damnaretur . Vbi est ergo misericors liberalitas Christi Dei , si talis proles fidelium propter illud quod non est in potestate eorum damnabitur , cum Deus secundum principia Theologiae communia sit pronior ad praemiandum homines quam ad dammandum : et specialiter merito et passione Christi tantum sua tentoria dilatante ? Which is thus Englished . And first let us see where Baptism is stablished in the Gospel . For read Mat. 28. how Christ commanded his Apostles , Go Teach &c. And hence Philip Baptizing the Eunuch , first instructed him in the Faith , Act. 8. And because of this form of Christs words Mat. 28. Our Church bringeth Believers answering for the Infant who had not attained to discretion : And such God-fathers commonly make the children whom they take from Baptism , to be instructed in the Lords Prayer , and the Creed . And others that had attained to discretion , while they are instructed in the faith of Christ before their Baptism , are called Catechumeni : And this Sacrament is so necessary to a viator that Christ saith to Nicodemus , Joh. 3. Except a man be born again of water , &c. So that by so great authority of Scripture belief , the faithful are generally Baptized : And the Church hath ordained that in the point of necessity * , every faithful person may be Baptized . Nor is it material whether they be dipped once or thrice , or the water be poured on their heads : but it must be done according to the custom of the place where one dwelleth , as well in one as in another lawful rite : For it is certain that corporal Baptism or washing little availeth unless there be a washing of the Mind by the Holy Ghost , from Original or Actual sin . For this is a principle in this belief , that whoever is rightly Baptized , Baptism blotteth out whatever sin it findeth in the man to be Baptized . And because satisfaction is necessary to the blotting out of sin , and satisfaction for sin cannot be made but by the death of Christ , therefore saith the Apostle , that as many of us as are Baptized into Christ , are Baptized into his death . ALITH . But tell me plainlier I pray you , how Christ who so much hateth sensible signes , hath put so great necessity of salvation in this washing . For it seemeth to derogate from Gods liberality and power , that God cannot by all his merit and passion intercede to save an Infant or an adult beliver , unless he be Baptized by an old Woman or some other viant , commonly an Infidel : so also , when the Infant of believers is brought to the Church , that ( ☞ ) according to Christs Rule he may be Baptized , and for want of water or other requisites , the peoples pious intention continuing , he is dead in the mean time naturally by the will of God , it seemeth hard to define that such an Infant is damned ; specially when neither the Infant nor the people have sinned that he should so be damned : Where then is the merciful li●erality of Christ-God if such a child of believers shall be damned for that which is not in their power ? when God , according to the common Principles of Theologie , is proner to reward men than to damn them , and specially when the merit and passion of Christ have so far stretched out their tents ? To this Wickliffe answereth , 1. In this Chap. that ●ome things he speaketh assertively , and some things reputatively ; and so revieweth the case . And 1. saith that Christ approveth outward signs , but not the abuse of them . That is , 1. When the signs of the old Jewish Law are kept . 2. By an inmodest espo●sing them , and preferring them before Gods Decalogue . 3. By burthening the Church with them which Christ would have free ; even more than the Jewish Church was burthened : And thus the Religious now ( saith he ) abuse them the two last wayes . And in the Twelfth Chapter he proceedeth to answer the rest [ Videtur mihi probabile quod Christus satis posset sine lotione hujus , infantes spiritualiter baptizare , et per consequens salvare : unde dicitur communiter quod triplex est baptismus Ecclesiae , viz. baptismus fluminis , baptismus sanguinis , baptismus flaminis , et quilibet eorum comparibus sufficit ad salutem — Nec audeo asserere quod Infantes occisi pro Christo sint damnati — Baptismus autem flaminis est bapt . sp . sancti , qui est simpliciter necessarius cuilibet homini si salvetur . Ideo duo baptismi priores sunt signa antecedentia , et ex suppositione necessaria ad istum tertium baptismum flaminis . Ideo absque dubietate , si iste insensibilis baptismus ad fuerit , baptizatus est à crimine mundatus . Et si iste defuerit , quantumcunque adsint priores , baptismus non prodest animae ad salutem . Ideo cum recte sit insensibilis , & tantum nobis ignotus , videtur mihi imprudens praesumptio taliter salvationem hominis vel damnationem ex baptismo definire . Reputamus tamen absque dubietate ☞ Quod Infantes recte baptizati flumine , sint baptizati tertio baptismate , cum habent gratiam baptismalem . — Non enim licet fidelibus supponendo baptismum flaminis , baptismum fluminis omnino relinquere , sed necesse est data opportunitate circumstantiae ipsum accipere . Et cum omnia quae eveniunt de necessitate eveniunt , dici potest quod talis homo non potest salvari sine tali baptismate . Thus Englished . [ It seemeth to me probable that Christ can sufficiently Baptize Infants spiritually without this washing , and by consequence , can save them . Whence it is commonly said , that there is a threefold Baptism of the Church , that is , the Baptism of water , the Baptism of blood , and the Baptism of the Spirit : And every one of them to the meet , sufficeth to salvation — Nor dare I assert that the Infants Mat. 2. killed for Christ are damned . But the Baptism of the spirit is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost , which is simply necessary to every one that he be saved . Therefore the other two Baptisms are antecedent signs , and suppositively necessary to this third Baptism of the spirit . Therefore without doubt where that insensible baptism is , the Baptized person is cleansed from his sin : and if that be wanting , let the former be never so much present , Baptism profiteth not the soul to salvation . Seeing therefore this is insensible , and so much unknown to us , it seemeth to me imprudent presumption so to define mens salvation , or damnation by their Baptism . But yet we hold without doubting , that Infants rightly Baptized with water , are Baptized with the third Baptism , when ( or seeing ) they have Baptismal grace . — For it is not lawful for the faithful , on supposition of the Baptism of the spirit , to cast off the Baptism of water , but it is necessary to receive it , when the opportunity of circumstance is offered . And seeing whatever cometh to pass , doth come to pass of necessity , it maybe said that such a one cannot be saved without such Baptism . ] And to the question of an old woman Baptizing children in necessity , he saith , [ Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta persona rite lavante hominem cum verbis sacramentalibus Baptismum flaminis Deus complet . ] The Reader must pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer , which may thus be Englished . [ But we believe that what old woman soever or abject person rightly washeth one with the Sacramental words , God fulfilleth the Baptism of the spirit . ] It seemeth that whereas Tertullian ( Mr. D.'s first witness ) was for Lay-mens Baptizing in case of necessity , but not for womens , that Wickliffe was for womens also . And to the next qu●stion , Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptism could not be had , be all damned ? he answereth ( Et per haec respondeo ad &c. ) that is [ And by this I answer your third objection , granting , that God if he will , may damn such an Infant , and do him no wrong , and if he will he can save him : And I dare not define either part : nor am I careful about reputation , or getting evidence in the case ; but as a dumb man am silent , humbly confesing my ignorance , using conditional words * ; because it is not yet clear to me , whether such an Infant shall be saved or damned : But I know that whatever God doth in it will be just and a work of mercy , to be praised of all the faithful : And let not them like presumptuous fools , pour out themselves , that of their own authority , without knowledge , define any thing in that matter . ] — Qui autem dicit , &c. But he that saith that in this case put , an Infant shall be saved , as it is pious to believe , he doth superfluously uncertain himself * , more than will profit him . But there are some things in Parents power though lapsed into a thing Past , for which it is necessary by Gods just judgement , that so it should come to pass : Therefore he that defineth , that neither Parents nor people so sinned , that it should so come to pass , doth speak as a Pie on the head of his own knowledge . But we believe it as a point of faith , that nothing befalls a man after the first grace , unless some part of mankind either merit or demerit , that this shall come to pass . ] In the next ( thirteenth ) Chapter , he proceedeth to answer the question [ Quomodo animae talium Infantium sine peccato actuali decedentium punientur ( Having before spoken of Infants dying unbaptized unavoidably ) that is , How the souls of such Infants shall be punished ? whether all equally or unequally ? and whether only with the punishment of loss , or also of sense ? ] And he concludeth contrary to the greater part of the Papists , that they shall have both the punishment of Loss and Sense ; and ( Note that ) that [ Necesse est peccata originalia hominum esse inaequalia , sicut decedentes in originalibus sunt propter illa inaequaliter condemnandi : Nam juxta dicta omnes condemnati pro originalibus sunt condemnandi tam poena damni quam poena sensus : sed impossibile est quod condemnentur aequaliter omnino illis poenis : ergo relinquitur quod peccata quibus illas poenas demeruerunt , inaequalia sunt dicenda . ] That is , [ It must needs be that the Original sins of men are unequal , as those that die in Original sins are unequally to be condemned for them : For as is said , all that are condemned for original sin are condemned both with the punishment of Loss and of Sense ; But it is impossible that they should be damned altogether equally with those pains . Therefore it remaineth that the sins by which they deserved those punishments be said to be unequal ] . Reader , I have been the larger in transcribing and translating the words of Wickliffe , because an Author is not so well understood by a line or two dismembred from the rest , as by whole discourses : and so that his sense may be past all controversie : Here it is visible that Wickliff was so far from denying Infant-Baptism , that 1. He expresly asserteth it , 2. He never so much as noteth it for any controversie , nor maketh any doubt or question about it . 3. Yea he taketh it to be bold presumption for any to take upon them to know , whether an Infant that dyeth unavoidably unbaptized be saved or not , but only saith God can do it if he will , and he can damn him . 4. And to those that say that the Parents are not in the fault , nor the people , seeing they intended his Baptism , he saith , that many things come to pass for past sins of Parents , and people , and therefore that cannot be concluded ; and nothing after the first grace cometh to pass unmerited . 5. And he concludeth that those of them that are damned for original sin , are punished with pain of loss and sense , but unequally , having unequal original sins . 6. But Baptism he asserteth doth put away all sin in the rightly Baptized . 7. And that when Infants are rightly Baptized with water , they are Baptized with the third Baptism having Baptismal grace . 8. That it is according to Christs rule that Infants be brought to the Church to be Baptized . And now Reader , judge what a sad case poor honest ignorant Christians are in , that must have their souls seduced , troubled and led into Love-killing alienations , and separations and censures of Christs Church , and of their particular brethren , by such a man as this ? And whether they that dare use souls at this rate , are so much better than us , as to be above our communion ? Nay whether those that lately revile the Zeal of dissenters , as cherishing the most odious crimes , be not too much scandalized and hardened by such dealings ? When a man as pleading for Christ and Baptism dare not only print such things , but stand to them in a second edition , and defend them by a second book , and Rage and be Confident in reviling those that tell him of his untruths ? § . 10. But he hath many pretended reasons to prove that Wickliff was against Infant-Baptism , and some of them out of the very Chapters which I have transcribed : 1. Saith he , He asserted two Sacraments . 2. That believers must be baptized in pure water , ( And what are these to the purpose ? ) 3 That believers are the only subjects of Baptism ( A gross untruth ) ( But he giveth you the words that prove it [ Ideo absque dubitatione si iste insensibilis baptismus affuerit , baptizatus à crimine est mundatus : & si ille defuerit , quantumcunque essent priores , baptismus non prodest animae ad salutem ] . I gave you the words before . And did the man think that this is any thing to his purpose ? Wickliff saith , [ Water Baptism saveth no soul ( young or old ) without the Baptism of the Spirit . ] Therefore saith Mr. D. Wickliff saith , that Believers are the only subjects of Baptism . ] Will he make the Church of his mind by such palpable falshoods as these ? But he adds , [ He saith that persons are first to be Baptized with that he calls the insensible Baptism , before water , &c. ] Answ . 1. Utterly false : It is his own forgery . Wickliff saith no such thing that it must be first : Nay I doubt he saith quite contrary as I have recited . [ Ideo duo baptismi priores sunt signa Antecedentia , & ex suppositione necessaria ad istum tertium baptismum flaminis . ] See here how far this man is to be believed . 2. But though Wickliff called Water-Baptism an antecedent sign , yet most Protestant Writers I think hold that believers Infants have by virtue of Gods Covenant the Baptism of the Spirit , ( that is , a seed or disposition to future gracious acts if they live ) ; and that they are in a state of salvation before they are Baptized , being the children of the faithful by them dedicated to God , by heart-consent , and that Baptism is but the publick solemnization of the same Covenant , and delivery of the blessings by way of investiture . Let Mr. D. read but all the testimonies cited by Mr. Gataker in his book of Baptism , against Dr. Ward , and Bishop Davenant , and he will see this is no opinion proper to the Anabaptists : And I scarce believe that he can prove me and all Protestants that hold that opinion , to be therefore against Infant-Baptism : How then would it have proved Wickliff so ? 4. He saith that Wickliff saith that Baptism doth not confer , but only signifie grace given . ] Answ . 1. And what 's that to prove , that he was against Infant-Baptism ? 2. And how proveth he this ? Why , Fuller out of Cochleus saith so . Answ . 1. But Cochleus is one of the most notable Lyars of all the Papists that opposed Luther , and hath left his Calumnies to posterity ! And must he be believed against Wickliff ? 2. And Fuller wrote but about twenty years ago : And must one of our neighbours tell us what Cochleus saith was the opinion of Wickliff , when we can read his words our selves ? 3. But ( to make this like its fellows ) even this much is untrue , Fuller tells us no such thing out of Cochleus , but tells us that Gregory charged Wickliff with eighteen Errors ; Tho. Arundel with twenty three ; the Council of Constance with 45. Tho. Waldensis with 80. Dr. Lucke with 266. and Cochleus with 303. and then he reciteth 62. out of Waldensis , where the words are . 4. And Waldensis is known to be a false accuser of him in many particulars , though a learned Papist . 5. And even this Waldensis that saith his worst , and sought to make the most of his errors , never here accuseth him as denying Infant-Baptism : And would he not have done it , had it been true ? But Mr. D. ( that by this trick which he is so ready at , can make Heresies and Hereticks also too easily ) tells us of a popish Heresie , viz. for Baptism [ to take away all sin , to confer grace , to work regeneration and save the soul , as still held by them that teach young children to say , that by their Baptism they were made children of God , members of Christ , and Inheritors ( that is , heirs ) of the Kingdom of heaven . ] Answ . 1. By this it seems the English Protestants and all the rest that take this to be true doctrine , hold a Popish Heresie . 2. Let the Reader peruse Gataker against Davenant of Baptism , and he will find almost all the ancient Fathers Latine and Greek of the same judgement : And what a pleasure is this to the Papists to be told that almost all the ancient Writers held their heresie ? And then indeed Where was our Church and the Kingdom of Christ before Luther , or rather before those whom he opposed ? 3. It is unquestionable true doctrine that as Marriage-consent in private , layeth the first ground of Marriage rights , which by solemn Matrimony are openly and regularly delivered by investiture , which perfecteth the title : even so , the Heart-Consent or Covenanting ( of the person , or parents for Infants ) doth lay the first ground of Christian right , which is solemnized and perfected regularly by Baptism , which by the way of tradition or publick investiture , doth take away all guilt of sin , Sacramentally regenerate , and save , and make us children of God , members of Christ and his Church , and heirs of heaven , who were so before by a Private initial right , of which the Church did take less cognisance : And one would think that no Anabaptist should deny this , ( called Heresie ) as to the adult . 5. He next addeth from Wickliff , They are fools and presumptuous which affirm such Infants not to be saved , which die without Baptism ] so Fuller words it out of Cochleus . Answ . 1. False still : It is not out of Cochleus , but Waldensis . 2. And what 's this to the question of Infant-Baptism ? He adds , [ And Wickliffs own words as c. 2. de Trialog . Quod desinentes parvulos fidelium sine baptismo , &c. ] Answ . Still false : 1 I have before transcribed the words out of the Printed book which are far otherwise . 2. It is not desinentes but qui quicquam definiunt . 3. It is not of all children dying without Baptism , but of those that could not have it , being prevented by death , when it was desired . 4. He saith this of those that determine that they are saved also . 5. And instead of c. 2. this is lib. 4. c. 12. 6. He saith , [ That all truth is contained in the holy Scripture , and that which is not originally there , is to be accounted prophane ; And that we are to admit of no science or conclusion that is not proved by Scripture testimony , and that whoever holds the contrary opinion cannot be a Christian but flatly the Devils Champion ] with more such cited partly out of Cochleus by Fuller , ( false again ) and partly de Verit. Script . ] a book of Wickliffs which I have not , and I conjecture he never saw : For 1. I told you before the very words of Wickliff that condemn only such abuses of outward signs , as shew him to be of a contrary opinion . 2. Will any sober man believe that he damned all as no Christians , but Champions of the Devil , that thought that some Conclusions Physical , Mathematical , Metaphysical , Medicinal , Logical , &c. may be true that are not proved by Scripture testimony ? and so that almost all Christians in the world are no Christians ? 7. Saith he [ That he slighted the Authority of General Councils , as Fuller out of Cochleus , &c. Answ . 1. False again as to the Author . 2. But what is that to Infant-baptism ? But his direct proof is out of Waldensis saying that Wickliff saith that children are not sacramentally to be baptized . Answ . 1. I have not Waldensis at hand , but have little cause to believe Mr. D. 2. And Fuller who undertaketh to recite Waldensis charge , hath not a word of any such sense . 3. If bitter Papists so accuse him , is it therefore true ? Judge by his own words . Indeed Wickliff held that sacramental baptism saveth none ( young or old ) without the baptism of the spirit ; and that it may be separated from it : And hence was the Papists noise against him . 8. Saith he [ As a further argument that he denied Infant-baptism , may appear , because he did so vehemently impugn Confirmation , &c. Answ . 1. Here we have Fuller out of Cochleus falsly again . 2. Are all Protestants against Infant-baptism , that are against the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation ? What a prover is this man ? Is Dallaeus that hath written so large a disputation of Confirmation , an Anabaptist ? And the English Nonconformists too ? 3. But in very deed , Mr. D.'s falshood and Wickliffs opinion for Infant-baptism , may very probably be gathered from that ( not fifteenth as he , but ) fourteenth Chapt. of Confirmation : For , 1. He reprehendeth the Bishops for adding so many Ceremonies to Infant-baptism , never blaming their baptism it self . 2. He argueth against confirming children , as superfluous , because the spirit is given in baptism it self [ & confirmatur ex hoc quod baptizatos nostros dicimus regulariter Spiritum Sanctum accipere eo ipso quo legitime baptizantur , that is , And it is hence confirmed , in that we say that our baptized ones do regularly receive the Holy Ghost , in that ( or by that very thing ) that they are lawfully baptized . ] And he had before said that they are offered to Baptism in the Church according to Christs Rule . § . 11. After all this Mr. D. addeth Wickliffs opinions against Popery to the number of 29. But what all this is to the case of Infant-baptism , what man besides himself can tell ? But let me tell him that I would not have him too easily believe bitter adversary Papists , lest he forfeit the little relicts of his own credit : And that it is not like that Wickliff was against enjoyning the Lords-Prayer as he citeth : Yea , I would not have Mr. D. come so near the Papists yet as Wickliff did . How doth he like such words as these [ Trialog . li. 4. c. 22. fol. 138. Et talis est triplex Ecclesia ; Ecclesia scilicet Militans , Dormiens , & Triumphans — Ecclesia Dormiens est praedestinati in Purgatorio patientes — that is , There is such a threefold Church : The militant Church , the sleeping Church , the triumphant Church : — The sleeping Church is the Predestinate suffering in Purgatory . ] And lib. 2. c. 10. see what he saith of Angels and adoration of them . And c. 11. of Angels offices , and their being virtually every where . And what he saith of Kings , and Matrimony ( quod excedit alia Sacramenta , &c. ) li. 4. c. 19 , 20. fol. 132 , 133. Nor would I say that omnia quae eveniunt de necessitate eveniunt , as fol. 120. a. Or that Deus potest esse Asinus si velit , ut fol. 90. b. One of the worst things I like in Wickliff is , that he plungeth himself into the deepest School-subtilties , or difficulties , with less subtilty or diligence than the case requireth , and than Schoolmen use . And indeed I like not divers of his conclusions ; as lib. 2. c. 14. fol. 41. [ Quod Deus necessitat creaturas singulas activas ad quemlibet actum suum : ] It is supposed that Hobbs by the same Doctrine overthroweth all the Christian faith : And I believe that his doctrine there fol. 41. and elsewhere , for merit , and how temporale sit causa praedestinationis aeternae , will displease some . And his distinction of Mortal and Venial sin , as li. 3. c. 5. fol. 52. And that he maketh final impenitence the sin against the Holy Ghost ; And that none can know what sin is mortal in us , and what not ? And cap. 6. Concedi potest quod multi praesciti sunt in gratia secundum praesentem justitiam : It may be granted that many reprobates are in ( a state of ) Grace , according to their present righteousness — Praesciti autem nunquam sunt in gratia finalis perseverantiae : The Reprobate are never in the grace of final perseverance . So that he held that present true grace was lost by some , as Austin did , which he explaineth cap. 7. And cap. 8. again he is at his Omnia eveniunt necessitate absoluta reviewing what he had said , and concludeth that [ no man can do better than he doth ; but he could if God would ] and denieth not sin to be hereby necessitated , &c. § . 12. Pag. 115. He again impenitently reneweth his slander of Berengarius , as being against Infant-baptism : Concerning whom saith Vsher de success . Eccles . cap. 7. p. 207. [ Author Actorum , &c. The Author of the Acts of Bruno ( found in the Library of the Noble Baron Carew of Clopton ) who saith he was at this examination , saith , that they ( some of Berengarius followers ) said that baptism profited not children to salvation , as also Deodvinus Leodiensis first from common fame , and then Guitmundus Arch. Aversanus on the credit of Leodiensis report that Bruno Andegavensis & Berengarius Turonensis [ quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertisse ] did as much as in them lay overthrow the baptism of children ; But we find no charge ever brought against Berengarius concerning Anabaptism , in so many Synods as were held against him : Nor do they seem to have denied any thing else , who are said to deny that baptism profiteth little Ones to Salvation , but that Baptism conferreth Grace ex opere operato : As gathering from the Apostles words , He that planteth and he that watereth is nothing , but God that giveth the increase : So Alanus li. 1. cont . haer●t . sui temp . taketh them as if they had said [ Baptism hath no efficacy either on young or old ; therefore m●n are not bound to be baptized . ] And that this was the plain case is proveable , in that it was just the case of Wickliff and the Waldenses , who were said to do as much as in them lay to cast out Infant-baptism , because they thought that every wicked Priest did not sanctifie them ex opere operato , and infallibly convey Gods grace to the unprepared . But his proofs are [ 1. The Magdeb. tell us that Berengarius maintained his heresies , which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation , and Baptism to little ones , under five heads , which Lanfrank Arch-Bishop of Canterbury answers at large in his book called Scintillaris : and as to that of denying Infant-baptism he answers by saying , he doth thereby oppose the general Doctrine and universal Consent of the Church . Answ . 1. I have not the Magdeb. at hand , but he hath little to do that will ask Illyricus , and Gallus and Amsdorfius what Lanfrank writeth , if he have his book before him . The publisher of Lanfranks book against Berengarius giveth us notice of no other . Trithemius de script . Eccles . knew of no other but this , which is in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 190. And I have lookt over every line of it ( such labour do these men put us to ) and I find not one word where any such thing is mentioned by Lanfrank : but only his accusations of Ber. about Transubstantiation : He never once chargeth him as denying Infant-baptism , nor mentioneth it . See , Reader , into what hands the poor seduced ones are fallen . § . 13. His second proof is this , Cassandra in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve saith , that Guitmund Bishop of Averse doth affirm that he did deny baptism to Little Ones , &c. Answ . 1. Cassander in neither of his Epistles to the Duke of Cleve mentioneth any such matter . But in his Preface to his Book for Infant-baptism to the Duke of Cleve , he saith that Guitmund saith [ Quod inter caeteros errores , parvulorum baptismum everterit , quem tamen errorem in publicum non produxit , quod eam blasphemiam ut Guitm . loquitur , ne pessimorum quidem hominum aures toleraturas sciret , & in Scripturis sacris locum ejus erroris tuendi penitus non videret . ] Mark here Reader , 1. Berengarius is not said to deny Infant-baptism , but to overturn it , ( that is , by some consequence it 's like . ) 2. He did not publish this his opinion , but held it unpublished : And how then did Guitmund know it ? 3. Was Berengarius as honest or as stout a man as he is supposed , and yet when Infants were daily baptized , would never speak out his thoughts of the evil of it ? 4. Either he baptized Infants himself , or not . If he did , was he against it then ? What a Knave do they make him that so say ? If not , his opinion must needs be published by his practice , when they whose ears could not tolerate it , would less tolerate the refusing of their Childrens Christning . 5. Was that an honest man that would secretly hold an opinion which he knew he had no Scripture for ? 6. Note that even Cassander there tells us , that indeed the Waldenses though agreeing much with the Catharists , did yet both approve and use Infant-baptism , p. 671. and that this error slept till his age when Stork and Muntzer raised it . § . 14. 2. But what need we ask Cassander what Guitmund said ? What childish play is this ? His own book is as common as Cassanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmunds words are these [ Berengarius opened those things by which he might please worldly men , that love always ( if they may do it unpunished ) to sin : to wit , destroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages , and overturning Infants baptism : So that in one the Devil by his mouth perswaded the worst men that it was lawful to abuse all women ; and in the other [ Cassato baptismate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum , utpote postmodum baptizandis , impune ruere : Lege Epist . Leodiensis Episcopi contra Berengar . ad Henr. Reg. Franc. & eisdem pene verbis eadem ipsa ibi scripta reperies ] that is , [ making void the baptism of Infancie , they might rush unpunished into the depth of all evils , as being afterward to be baptized . Read the Epistle of the Bishop of Liege to H. R. of France against Berengarius , and there you shall find these same things written , almost in the same words . ] And now , Reader , judge further , 1. Whether this Papist who never knew the matter himself , and whose book sheweth him a silly bitter fellow professing to transcribe or take his words from the Bishop of Liege who took it from fame , be to he believed in his accusations of such a man , when Lanfrank that disputed with him before the Pope , nor the Pope himself , nor any of the many Synods that examined him , and constrained him to recant , ever mention such a thing ? Were these Persecutors think you blind or merciful herein ? 2. If he be to be believed in this , why not in the first article , of the lawfulness of abusing all women commonly ? 3. Do not the very words [ quantum in se , and everterit ] and [ cassato baptismate ] open the case , that malice gathered this as a forced consequence only of some words of Berengarius ? It is like because he defined a Sacrament to their dislike , which Lanfrank reproveth him for . And so sottish a fellow was this Guitmund that his fellow Papists are put to disown him for saying that their Eucharistical Host cannot be corrupted or putrifie , or be eaten by Mice , or any Bruits , but only seemeth so to be : ib. p. 230. l. 2. § . 15. His third proof is [ In the Bibl. Patr. Paris p. 432. it is recorded that Durandus — writes — the denying and as much as in them lay the destroying the baptism of Infants , &c. Answ . 1. Did this man ever see the Books he citeth , who citeth pag. 432. of the Bibl. Pat. as if were but one Tomb or Volume , that long ago was eleven great Volumes , and now many more ? It is like Marg. le Bignes Edit . is that he meaneth . The Epistle is Tom. 3. p. 319. of the Bigne Paris 1624. The Author , saith Vsher de succes . Eccl. p. 196. is falsly called Durandus , and is Deoduinus or Dietwinus . His words are [ Fama supremos Galliae fines praetergressa totam Germaniam pervasit , jamque omnium nostrum replevit aures , qualiter Bruno Andeg. Episc . item Berengarius Turonensis — astruant Corpus Domini non tam Corpus esse quam umbram & figuram Corporis Domini , Legitima conjugia destruant , & quantum in ipsis est , baptismum parvulorum evertant . ] This is it that Vsher cited : 1. You see here is nothing but a Papist Prelates tale to a King , upon far fetcht fame , 2. Charging him equally , yea more with destroying marriage , 3. And saying but [ quantum in se ] of baptism ; 4. And part of the fame is that the King had called a Council to examine these things ; which Council never taking notice of any such matter confuteth the fame . And doth Mr. D. the great enemy of Antichrist perswade poor Anabaptists to believe such fellows and tales as these ? § . 16. In his Reply he addeth fourthly [ Thuanus witnesseth that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute Berengarius for denying Infants baptism , as p. 242. Answ . 1. Again he tells us of Thuanus , and tells not where , as if we must read over five volumes in folio to be able to disprove such a Tale-teller as this ? But he saith Vsher saith so de success . Eccl. pag. 252. But all still is false : my book there hath not such a word . Vshers words are pag. 207. and them also he most horribly falsifieth . They are but these [ Brunonem queque Trevirorum Arch. Dioecesi sua expulisse quosdam ex Berengarii Sectatoribus qui illius Doctrinam in Eburonibus Atuaticis & aliis Belgii populi● disseminabant , narrat Thuanus . ] That is , [ Thuanus saith that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Trevers expelled out of his Diocess some of Berengarius's followers , who sowed his doctrine , &c. ] so that here is no talk of persecuting Berengarius , but some of his followers , nor a word of Infant-baptism . Was ever such a reporter as this man before taken for a credible person ? I confess I remember not that ever I read the like , among Papists or any other Sect. In Thuanus the words are found in his Epistle to the King before all his works , excellently disswading him from blood and persecution , and there is not one syllable of Infant-baptism ; but only that which Vsher cited : yet durst this man justifie these horrid falshoods in a second Edition and a Reply . CHAP. III. Mr. D.'s Justification of his slander of the Waldenses , Confuted more largely . § . 1. IN his Reply p. 108. he reassumeth this Calumny . And first he reciteth their Confession to prove it : as if he wanted matter to fill his Book , not having one word against Infant-baptism in that which is by himself recited : But it must be inferred , if such a man as this be to be believed , because faith is required ( in the adult , and them that Covenant for Infants ) and because Traditions and Inventions are disclaimed , and such like . Had the man dealt by the Waldenses but as he doth by me , when citing my words he will prove that my words are for him while I am against him , ( as if I understood not what I say ) it had been much less . But to face down the world that the Waldenses denied Infant-baptism for such silly reasons , is intolerable . It is not worth the labour to shew him how the Protestants agree with the Waldenses in all the points where he feigneth a disagreement , p. 112. § . 2. Yet doth the man break out into admiration that he having with exactness given a particular account of all those Confessions word for word , — and proved by ample demonstrations , 1. That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century , &c. Answ . Wonderful ! That such a man should talk of exactness and demonstration . Stay Reader a little , and tell me whether it call not for shame and tears that one such Book should be written by a Christian ? Much more that this calumny should be thus over and over audaciously justified ? § . 3. In Roger Wendover ( our chiefest ancient Chronicler , and one that he oft citeth himself , and therefore should have read ) In Hen. 2. fol. 319. b. You have a Confession of the Tholousians called Boni homines in which are these words [ Credimus etiam quod non salvatur quis , nisi qui baptizatur ; & parvulos salvari per baptisma . ] That is , [ We believe also that none is saved but he that is baptized , and that little children are saved by baptism ] ( For we find that it was the denial of the saving virtue of wicked Priests baptism ( to young or old ) as working ex opere operato , which occasioned their accusations : ) would you have a fuller proof ? Vsher de succes . Eccl. c. 6. p. 155 , &c. giveth us the Catalogue of their opinions as reported by Aeneas Sylvius ( after Pope Pius the second ) where there is somewhat of theirs against Confirmation , Chrism , Extream Unction , &c. but not a word against Infant-baptism ; adding the consent of Jacob. Picolomin . Anton. Bonfin . Bern. Lutzenburg . Another Catalogue he giveth out of the Magdeb. hist . Centur. 12. c. 8. col . 1206 , 1207. as taken out of an old M.S. where is not a word against Infant-baptism : Yea reciteth Will. Reynolds a bitter Papists Catalogue , where there is no such thing : Yea , mentioneth nine points more in which Parsons , Sanders , Coccius say they differ from us , but none of this . And pag. 242. c. 8. he tells you of Gretsers own confession that they were none but the Waldenses that Hoveden speaketh of , that made the foresaid Confession , though accused of Arianism . See more testimonies of many others , pag. 306 , 307 , 308. Thuanus ( falsly cited by him as before of Berengarius ) lib. 6. an . 2550. reciteth their opinions , pag. 185 , 186. not mentioning a word of this ; nay , telling us that some falshoods were reported of them , doth not so much as number this among the fictions . And pag. 188. he tells you of an inquiry made into their Original and Doctrine by Gul. Bell. Langaeus , commanded by Authority thereto , wherein no such thing is mentioned of them , but their avoiding Popish superstitions . In the first Confession recited by Perin ( p. 60. ) they own baptism , but say not a word against Infant-baptism . The same is true of the second Confession recited by him , p. 62 , 63. In the end of Perin you have their Catechism , and the summ of their Doctrine out of several of their old Books ; and therein not a word against Infant-baptism , but expresly they assert it : Cap. 6. p. 41 , 42 , 43. in their Doctrine of the Sacraments , they say [ And for this cause we present our Children in haptism ; which they ought to do , to whom the children are nearest , as their Parents , and they to whom God hath given this charity . ] Just as Wickliff ▪ Judge now of this mans words ? § . 4. But his second Demonstration is from the witness born against it by some of their most eminent leading men , viz. Berengarius , Peter Bruis , Henricus Arnoldus — Answ . Berengarius is not used to be reckoned as one of the Waldenses , but if you will so call him , I have confuted the slander of him before . His proof against Bruis is Peter Cluniacensis , of whom I have said enough to Mr. Tombes which I will not recite . § . 5. It is true that some Papists do raile at the Waldenses with abominable calumnies , as guilty of the most odious heresies , [ denying the resurrection , and the salvation of Infants , asserting the common use of women , and abundance such : ] Insomuch that it is become a hard question whether really there were any such people , or whether all were slanders : and among other things they charge them with denying Infant-baptism . And the Authors go so much on fame , and shew so much falshood , that many think that all are fictions . But Bishop Vsher ( de succes . Eccl. ) and some others bring many testimonies to prove that in that age there were abundance of Manichees that came into Lombardie , and from thence came into the country of the Waldenses ; and that for their sakes the Papists accused the Waldenses of all these villanies and heresies with Anabaptism , as if they had been all of a mind . And though I confess that the horrid lies of abundance of Papists of Luther , Calvin , Zuinglius and other such , and some experiments in this age , have given men occasion to question whether all were not meer forgeries , and that nothing is to be believed that they said of those times ; yet I am ready to think that there were some such persons as they describe that were against the Resurrection , and for common uncleanness , and denied Infants salvation and baptism , even such Manichees and Arrians as aforesaid : Not that I think it any whit strange that fame among such worldly persecutors should belie others as much as this comes to ; but because of the historical reports of such Manichees recited by Vsher ubi sup . pag. 225 , 226 , &c. cap. 8. & Vignier Hist . Eccles . an . 1023. And that they falsly took the Waldenses to have been of the Manichees mind , as living among them , is all the cloak that any reasonable charity can afford to those old ones that falsly accused them : And to the later slanderers ( Coussordus , Gretser , &c. ) this will be no cloak , much less to Mr. Danvers if in his zeal for his Sect and way , he will own the slanders of blinded Papists , when he crieth them down himself , and hath had time and means to know their calumniation . To all this , let the Reader add but the perusal of the gross contradictions of their accusers against each other , ( yea the same Author as reported by Coussardus saying one thing , and as published by Gretser saying the contrary , I mean Raynerius . ) And let him consider of the testimony of Vignier concerning an old Copy of their Doctrine shewed to the great and excellent Chancellour of France , Mich. Hospitalius , wholly agreeing with the doctrine of the later Waldenses , and renouncing only the Popish superstitions : And the testimony of Poplinerius that by many old fragments and monuments which he had seen , in the language of their Country , and by the Acts yet kept of the Disputation between the Bishop of Apanica and Mr. Arnolt , and by their own Confessions which many assured him they had seen , the old Albigenses doctrine was altogether conform to the Protestants doctrine , Vsher , p. 308. c. 10. And then judge whether the charge of Anabaptistry , and all Manichaean abhominations be credible . § . 6. But ( saith Mr. D. ) Cassander testifieth in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve that Peter Bruis and Henricus denied baptism to little ones , affirming that only the adult should be baptized . Answ . Read but Cassanders Pref. and judge of the Credit of this mans accusations . 1. Cassander saith , that it was the Manichees and Priscillianists ( who were Gnosticks saith Sulpit . Severus who lived in Priscillians time ) that brought in the errors after mentioned by him , which swarmed in Bernards daies ; And that this Heresie bred them that were called Catharists , a name belonging to one of the three sects of Manichees : but in France they were called Albigenses , from the place , and that it was to these Manichean and Priscillian errours , that they added the denyal of Infant-Baptism . 〈◊〉 He saith , Peter Bruis , and Henry , seem to have been the chief Authors of this addition ; but in a far differing sense from the later Anabaptists ; For Peter and Henry equally denyed Baptism and salvation to Infants , or any but actual believers . 3. And for the surmise of Peter and Henry he taketh the word of Peter the Abbot Cluniacensis : so that Cassander doth but what Mr. D. doth , even report Cluniacensi . 4. And he professeth that the Waldenses called Picards , whose relicts were in Moravia and Bohemia to that day , [ did approve and use Infant-Baptism as consentaneous to the Gospel ] as I before cited him . § . 7. His next proof is [ Dr. Prideaux saith in his Lat. Councils , that Peter Bruis and Arnold of Brixia , were in the second Laterane Council censured for the heresie of rejecting Infant-Baptism , &c. ] Answ . I have seldom read an Author whose Proofs are liker one another : 1. Why must we be told what Dr. Prideaux saith of the acts of an old Council , as easily known by us as by him ? 2. Reader , there is not the least proof of any such matter medled with in that Council : Peter Crab doth not so much as name that Council : Binius only tells you that the Acts of the Council are not extant , but that Abbas Vrspergensis , and Otto Frisingensis give us some account of what they did , whose words have not a syllable about any such subject , but only that they condemned the Schismaticks who adhered to Peter Leo , an Antipope . 3. But how came Dr. Prideaux so to mistake ? Answ . Those Papers of Dr. Prideaux were posthumous shreds , which whether he would have owned we cannot tell . But that which he saith , is that there were thirty Canons lately published as that Council's , which Bellarmine himself rejecteth as false : And seeing I never saw that forgery I cannot say whether any such thing be in it , which Prideaux's words recite : But it must be from that or from nothing . And is this a good proof for Prideaux to tell you what a forged writing saith , which Crab and Binius and Bellarmine eject or take for false ? 4. But what if that Council had so accused Bruis and Arnold , are they to be ( believed of them ? But there is no such thing proved . § . 8. His next proof is from Bernard , of whom I need to say no more than what Cassander , Vsher and others have oft said , that it was the foresaid Manichean Hereticks called Catharists that Bernard describeth by the name of Apostolick . And that he went by fame ( as Leodiensis did ) which falsly accused the Albigenses among them as guilty of the same heresies ; And that the same Bernard accuseth those that he spake of , of other heinous things ; If you believe from him that the Albigenses were guilty of the one , you have the same testimony that they were guilty of the other . § . 9. His next proof is the report of a late Papist Jos . Vicecomes , l. 2. c. 1. Whom he also after mentioneth in his Reply , who as truly numbreth Luther , Calvin , and Beza with the adversaries of Infant-Baptism . If such witnesses be his proof , he could not have chosen better for his turn than him and Cochleus , and some such calumniators , of which sort I could name him more . § . 10. His last witness is , Dr. Hammond confesseth that Peter Bruis and Henry his Scholar and the Petrobrusiani and Henricani that sprung from them opposed Infant-Baptism . ] Answ . 1. Not a word of Dr. Hammonds books is cited to prove this , but Mr. Tombes his Review . And must we know of Mr. Tombes what Dr. Hammond held ? No wonder then if I and the world must learn what I hold my self , and what I have written , from such as Mr. Danvers and Mr. Tombes . And why not also from all the rest that have written against me ? 2. I think it not worth my labour to search over Dr. Hammonds books to see whether he hath said this or not : seeing I know that he was my neighbour and lived so lately that he had no other means to know what these two men and their followers held , than what we and others have as well as he . You must give us elder proofs than this . 3. And if it were asserted by him or proved by others , it were no proof that the Waldenses denyed Infant-Baptism ; but it would only follow that Bruis and Henry were Manichees and not Waldenses , which seemeth to be the mistake of their later accusers at least . § . 11. Pag. 120. He proveth Mr. Wills guilty of unfaithfulness , want of conscience , cheating , forgery ; and after , pag. 122. of manifold Lying . Because , 1. He knoweth that Cluniacensis — hath given no such wicked and false testimony , &c. And how proveth he that ? [ For both Osiander and the Magdeb. from whom he had it , give an account of Fifteen particulars &c. ] Answ . 1. Doth that prove that Cluniac . hath no more ? 2. Do they say that those fifteen are all ? 3. And doth that prove that Mr. Wills knew it , who never saith , that he ever saw Cluniacensis book ? as it seems Mr. D. did not . 4. Doth Mr. D. himself know it , of a book never read ? See how this accuser proveth Lyes ? For my part I have not at hand either Cluniack or Osiander , or the Magdeb. and will not be at the labour to get and search them for nothing . § . 12. Pag. 121. he saith , [ He knowes that these particulars he mentions , were not charged on Peter Bruis but on the Albigeo's in the following Century by other hands than Bernard and Cluniacensis who were dead long before . Answ . 1. How know you another mans knowledge ? 2. Long before what ? Before any such accusations on the Albigenses ? Read Bernards Serm. 66. in Cant. Saith Vsher ( than whom few men ever knew such matters better , or more truly reported them ) de succes . c. 8. p. 232. Bernard Serm. 65. & 66. in Cant. mentioneth their opinions partly common with the Manichees , partly with the Orthodox . And that the Manichees were before among them he before proved at large , and that they ( called Cathari ) were by ordinary error mistaken for Waldenses and Leonists . And p. 236. saith he [ Sic & Apostolicis Bernardus Clareval . Catharis Eckbertus Schnang . Popelicanis Guido Armorican . atque Albigensibus Regordus Regis Franc. Chronographus , haeresin attribuit quam Apostolus praedixerat — detestantem nuptias , & carnem comedere prohibentem . ( Which in Bernard and Ecbertus are commonly to be seen ) Quod ut de Manicheis in terra Albig . commorantibus admitti potest , ita de toto Albig . genere dictum falsissimum esse constat , sive cum Thuano à Pet. Valdo sive cum Papir . Massonio à Pet. Bruisio eorum originem placeat repetere — And p. 237 , 238. he saith , A Petro Brusio & ejus successore Henrico qui ( ut ex Pet. Cluniacensi intelligitur ) — per annos viginti doctrinam suam disseminarunt Albigensium sectam deducit P. Massonius , — Apostolicos etiam de quibus Serm. 66. in Cant. agit Bernardus , eosdem esse opinatur Tham. Waldensis cum Publicanis . § . 13. Pag. 123. he proveth that the Waldenses did deny Infant-Baptism , from the Decrees of 12. several Princes , and Popes . For proof of that he referreth us to his former book . When I look there I find as cited p. 248 , &c. his evidence is as followeth . 1. Dr. Vsher out of the Fragments of Aquit . by P. Pithaeus tells us , that in the time of Robert King of France , they of Aquit and Tholouse , ( principal places of the Waldenses ) did deny Baptism ( for so they called denying Baptism to little ones ) &c. Answ . Mark Reader the trustiness of this man. 1. He maketh denying Baptism ( to signifie ) only denying it to Infants , without a word of proof ; 2. He leaveth out the denying of our Redeemer , denying Lawful Marriage , and the eating of flesh , &c. though conjoyned in the testimony . 3. He feigneth this to be said of the Waldenses , which is expresly said in the history to be spoken of the Manichees ? Is not this an excellent Prover ? The words of Pithaeus history cited by Vsher de succes . p. 229. are these , Emersisse in Gallia Manichaeos , &c. Pith. [ Evestigio exorti sunt per Aquitaniam Manichaei seducentes — suadebant negare baptismum , signum crucis , Ecclesiam , & ipsum Redemptorem seculi , honorem Sanctorum , conjugia legitima , esum carnium — simili modo apud Tholesam inventi sunt Manichaei , & ipsi igne cremati sunt : & per diversas Occidentis partes Manichaei , exorti — Of the real presence here is nothing . § . 14. 2. Saith Mr. D. [ Dr. Vsher also tells us out of Pap. Masson . that 14. Citizens of Orleans , were convict of the same heresie , for denying Baptismal grace , and the real presence , annd burnt alive , Herbert , Lisius and Stephen — Answ . Here note , 1. The history cited by Vsher ( Johan . Floriacensis , referente Masson . ) saith , [ abnegabant sacri baptismi gratiam ] but not a word of Infants : And it was known that the Waldenses opinion was that Priests did not ex opere operato give the Holy Ghost , nor Baptism without the Holy Ghost , save any ( young or old ) . 2. It addeth that they denied pardon of sin to be received , Marriage , meats which God created , and fat . § . 15. 3. He addeth , [ Dr. Vsher tells us , — Many of this Sect were about Milan , &c. Answ . Vshers words are out of Chron. Herman . Contract . [ Quosdam haereticos , &c. certain hereticks among other opinions of ill error , of the Manichean Sect , execrating the eating of all Animals — were hanged — ] . 1. He proveth by this , that they were not the Waldenses , but Manichees . 2. Not eating flesh is charged on them . 3. But not a word there of Baptism of young or old . § . 15. 3. He addeth , [ Also out of Radulph . Ard. — that several whom they called the Manichean Sect denyed Baptism , &c. ] Answ . Note 1. Ardens words cited by Vsher are , [ Tales sunt &c. Such are the Manichean hereticks at this time — who falsly say they keep the life of the Apostles ; saying that they lie not , nor swear at all ; and on pretence of abstinence , and continence , do damn eating flesh and marriage : They say that it is as heinous a crime to go to a Wife , as to a Mother , or Daughter : They damn the Old Testament : of the New , some they receive , and some not : and which is worse , they predicate two Makers of the World , believe that God made Invisibles and the Devil visibles . So that they secretly adore the Devil , who they think made their bodies . The Sacrament of the Altar they say is meer bread : Baptism they deny : They say none can be saved but by their hands : They deny the Resurrection of the body . ] 1. Here is not a word of Infants ; 2. They are described and called fully Manichees . 3. If this testimony be true , believe it : If not , trust it not , or at least forge not such words as are not here . § . 16. He addeth , [ Pope Leo the Ninth in his Decret . to Bishop Aquit . about 1050. commandeth that young children be Baptized , because of original sin ] . Answ . I will not turn to see whether it be so ▪ but what 's this to the purpose ? The Pope bids Baptize Infants : Ergo not only the Manichees but the Waldenses denyed it ? I deny that consequence . § . 17. He adds , [ Greg. 7. decreed 1070. that those young children whose Parents were absent or unknown , should according to the Tradition of the Fathers be Baptized . ] Answ . If this prove that the Waldenses were against Infant-Baptism , it will prove that Papists , Protestants and all are so ? what proving is this ? Of Bernard ( next cited ) we spake before . § . 18. His next witness is , [ Ecbertus a great Doctor against the Cathari , &c. Answ . Note Reader , that this Great Doctor was a Monk , and after an Abbot ▪ who saith that the Catharists against whom he wrote , 1. Deny and damn Marriage . 2. And all eating of flesh , because it comes by copulation . 3. That they say that the Devil made all flesh . 4. That they do not only say Baptism profiteth not Infants , but more commonly though more privately , that no water Baptism profiteth any one to salvation — And that Christ was not truly born of a Virgin , nor had humane flesh , but a shew of it , nor rose from the dead , but seemed to die , and rise . They are Manichees : They keep the feast of Manicheus death : That they hold that mens souls are nothing but the apostate Spirits cast out of heaven , which by good works here may procure salvation : ] If all this be true , were these the Waldenses ? and is this Mr. D. s proof — Bibliot . Pat. To. 4. p. 2. p. 79. &c. § . 19. His next proof is , [ Erbrardus another great ●octor , &c. ] Answ . This Erbrardus professeth to confute in the hereticks that he dealeth with , 1. That the Law is not of faith , but is to be reprobate &c. 2. He proveth it against them that the Prophets and Patriarchs are saved . 3. That it was the true God that gave Moses the Law. 5. That God made all things , and that they falsly held a Good and a Bad Maker of the World. 6. That children should be Baptized . 7. That it is lawful to marry . 9. For the Resurrection , and so on . And are these Waldenses and this man to he believed of them too ? § . 20. Ermingendus another great Writer is his next proof . Answ . This Ermingardus alias Ermengandus , ( we pardon him the misnaming ) writeth against Hereticks that hold , 1. That an evil God made the World. 2. That there are two Gods , a Good , and a Malignant . 3. That it was not the true God that gave Moses the Law. 4. That Moses was a Magician . 5. That Marriage is unlawful , and so on as the rest , even to the denyal of the Resurrection . And about Baptism ( Cap. 12. pag. 1249. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. Part. 1. ) that Baptism profits neither young nor old without the imposition of their hands . ] Is this a good witness that the Waldenses were against Infant-Baptism ? Reader , I am almost at the end of his proofs here , and yet have not patience thus to lose precious time , in opening the rest of his abuses : The few remaining are like the rest ! Yet here he foundeth his proof of Twelve Decrees , and endeth with an insultation against me and others . § . 21. In his Reply , p. 125. he adds Reinerius ; which giveth me occasion to tell the Reader , that if he will peruse this one Author , he will better understand the truth of the whole business , than by reading many confounders that speak upon fame they know not what . This Rhei●herus tells us , that he was one of the Arch-hereticks , and among them seventeen years ; that is the Catharists : He tells us upon his own knowledge , not only how many sorts of them there were , whom ( being then an Inquisitor ) he calleth hereticks , but also how many Churches the Catharists had , and what number each Church had , and where they were , and what every Sect held , as different from the rest . Whereas many ignorant writers of those times confound them . From him we have distinct notice that the Manichees and Catharists then held the horrid heresies charged on the Waldenses , and that the Leonists or Pauperes de Lugduno ( the true Waldenses and Albigenses ) were indeed free from them ; and about Worship and Church Government , they differed from the Pontificians as the Protestants do : But for doctrinals ( about Predestination , Free-will , Mans Power , Venial sin , Justification , Merit , &c. ) there is no regardable difference charged on them . Cap. 5. he giveth you a Catalogue of the Leonists opinions , of which twenty are against the Papal Government : Then he saith , they damn the Sacraments of the Church : And here come in the words cited by Mr. D. Where note , 1. That he maketh them say that [ Catechism is nothing ] 2. Item quod ablutio , quae datur Infantibus nihil profit . ] That the washing which is given to Infants , profits not . [ 3. That the Godfathers understand not what they should answer to the Priest . ] 4. That they reject exorcismes , and the benedictions of Baptism — that a Priest in mortal sin may not consecrate the Sacrament , &c. ] And let the Reader note that the Popish doctrine then was , that all Baptized Infants were certainly saved , because Baptized , how wicked soever the Parents , Priest , and Godfathers were : And that all these ( Priests , Parents , and Godfathers ) were then so often grosly ignorant and wicked , as became the scandal of all good people . And note that here Reinherus saith not that they rejected Baptism of Infants , nor held it unlawful , but that , 1. Ablutio , the outward washing . 2. Quae datur , which de facto was then given Infants , 3. Nihil profit , profits nothing , plainly meaning no more but that the children of wicked ignorant Parents , presented by Godfathers that know not so much as what to answer the Priest , and Baptized by wicked Priests who tell them that ex opere operato they are now certainly in a state of salvation , are not saved by this washing , unless they have also the Baptism of the spirit , which is not this way ascertained to them . And accordingly they meant of Catechizing ; that is , of the Popish Catechizing only ; And of the other Sacraments , as under the Popish notion of a Sacrament which giveth grace ex opere operato . And when he saith that [ Sacramentum Conjugii damnant ] he openeth the mystery of that accusation . 1. They denyed Marriage to be a Sacrament . 2. And he saith [ Dicentes mortaliter peccare conjuges , si absque speprolis conveniant . ] It seems they were too rigid for Chastity , but not against Marriage . § . 22. And that this is the true meaning of Reinherus appeareth , 1. By the phrase of the context . 2. In that he never offereth to confute any such error of theirs , as the denyal of the lawfulness of Infants Baptism . 3. And speaki●g Cap. 6. of the Orthibenses he further expoundeth all [ Parvulis vero non prodest nisi fuerint perfecti in secta illa ] the words before being [ De baptismo dicunt , quod nihil valeat , nisi quantum valeant merita baptizantis . ] So that it is not Antipaedobaptism that he accuseth them of , but that Baptism profiteth not Infants unless the Baptizers ( or Parents ) be good : that is , as aforesaid , when done by wicked Priests to the children of the wicked . § . 23. And for further evidence , the next Historian added by Gretser , ( Bibl. Patr. To. 4. Part. 2. p. 776. ) Pet. Pilichdorf seemeth one of the most learned and acquainted with what he wrote of any other that have then written against the Waldenses , and he refuteth their opinion of the invalidity of Sacraments , when administred by wicked Preists , c. 16 , 17. But never saith a word of their denying Infant-Baptism , even when he accurately and copiously in Thirty six Chapters reckons up and confuteth their differences from the Papal Church . And can we think such a man ( and almost all that confound them not with the Catharists that were Manichees ) would overlook this , in such a persecuting bloody time ; when they racked every word of the poor dissenters to make a heresie of it ? § . 24. To Pilichdorf is added another accurate confuter of their opinions , that hath not a word of any such charge . And next is added an exact Catalogue of their ( supposed ) errors to the number of Thirty seven , and not a word of this among them all . And next is added the Modus examinandi haereticos ; And next de erorribus Begehurdorum ; and have not a word of it . What the Papist doctrine was you need no better informer than Lucas Tudensis foregoing ( Part. 1.636 . who writeth against worse persons ( though Gretser intitleth it against the Albigenses ) and yet chargeth them not with this ) viz. Cap. 1. li. 2. [ In case of necessity every Neophyte maybe Baptized , of any Lay-man , Jew , Heretick , or Gentile . But for the dignity of the Sacrament it must be done by a Presbyter or Deacon , if there be opportunity , and received from any other , it is not at all to be iterated . By this Sacrament , both Infants and adult are Regenerated of Water , and the Spirit , and receive remission of all sins , with the adoption of the children of God. § . 25. If all this will not clear the Waldenses at Mr. D.'s barr , and if he look that we should take notice of his Dutch Martyrologie , and his Merningus , let him that erreth , err still . CHAP. IV. His Impenitence in Calumniating the Donatists ( and Novatians ) reprehended . § . 1. PAg. 132. of his Reply he returneth to this notorious calumny , and charging Mr. Willes with disingenuity he falls to his wonted way of proving , 1. From Sebastian Frank and Twisk , whom I neither have at hand , nor am obliged to believe in telling me what the Donatists held , nor to believe that Mr. D. here so differs from himself , as truly to report them . Once for all , It is usual with Writers to charge the Anabaptists as following the Donatists in Rebaptizing , but not in denying Infant-baptism : For the Donatists baptized again both Infants and adult . And it is like this deceived this temerarious man. § . 2. Next he repeateth his falshoods of Cresconius , Fulgentius , Vinc. Victor , which I have shewed to be done in great temerity . § . 3. Thirdly he repeateth his stupendious slander of Austin as with much zeal and fury in many Books opposing the Donatists for denying Infant-baptism ; of which in them all ( as far as I can find ) he hath not one syllable , but the clear contrary , as is proved by me . § . 4. Because Eckbertus and Emericus charge the Waldenses herein as conforming to the Donatists and Novatians . 1. It was not the Waldenses they spake of as I proved , but the Manichean Catharists ; 2. Or if they confounded them they wronged them ; 3. And if they say as he reporteth , they belied the Donatists ; and why then should I believe them ? 4. But this time-robber hath tempted me once more to peruse Eckbertus the Abbot , and to read his Serm. 7. and 8. and where-ever this subject is his theam , and I find not one syllable of any such matter in him of either Donatists or Novatians ; such a man have we now to deal with . § . The rest of his recitals are not worthy the recital : The Answer before given is sufficient . Only I say again that his contempt of so full a testimony as the Decree of a Council at that time [ for receiving without rebaptizing such as the Donatists baptized in Infancy ] cited by Cassander as a certain proof , is a proof that there is worse than a weak judgement in fault . CHAP. V. His renewed Calumny of the old Brittains reproved . § . 1. REpeating and defending Fabians foppery , he argueth that it could be nothing else in which they are said to contradict the Apostolick Catholick Church ? Answ . 1. If Beda say that Augustine tells them that in many things they do contrary to the Roman Catholick and the Apostolick Church , doth it follow that the three things in which he requireth their concurrence were all part of those many ? To preach the Gospel to the Saxons was one . Is that a point that they differed from all the Apostolick Church in ? When it seemeth to be from no other reason , than that they would not own the Saxons that had conquered them , nor the Papal power that would usurp upon them : And on the same reason they might as well refuse to baptize the Saxons children . 2. But there is no such thing in the words of Bede , as I have shewed [ but according to the manner of the Church of Rome , &c. ] And who knoweth not that the Church of Rome , and all in its communion then called the universal Church , used in baptism , the White Garment , the tasting Milk and Hony , and Chrysme , as an Apostolical tradition or such as they knew no original of ? Tertullian and Epiphanius alone are full witnesses of this , if there were no more . § . 2. There is nothing in the rest that I think needeth a word more of answer than I before gave . And I fear being guilty of idle words and lost time in writing needlesly . CHAP. VI. Of his venturous report of Bishop Ushers censure of me . IN his Reply pag. 51. he saith [ I have an honourable regard to his person , and due value to his labours , especially where he has laid out himself to promote practical holiness ( and wherein as I have judged his greatest excellency lies ) supposing had he let Controversies alone , and addicted himself thereto , he would much more have furthered the peace and union he pretends to promote : It having been , as I have heard , a judgement that Bishop Usher made of him , that if he persisted in Polemical writings , he was like to prove a troubler , rather than a promoter of peace . ] Here , 1. See how he feareth not to make reports of the dead by this hearsay ? No wonder if by this sort of men I my self am by backbiting so frequently traduced , and said to Preach and Print that which never was in my mouth or books or thoughts ? 2. Should one ask him whom he heard this from , do you think we should get a satisfying answer ? No one is here named . 3. It is possible Bishop Vsher upon the coming forth of my Aphorisms ( which had many crudities , and many quarrelled at it more than there was cause , ) might fear any thing that looked like unusual . 4. But I ask the Reader whether this be a probable report , when he understandeth , 1. That I was for some weeks familiar with the Bishop , and he never spake a syllable to me of such importance . 2. That when Doct. Kendal and I were together with him , and our question was what was Augustins jugement of Redemption , Perseverance , and some other things , he expresly averred that my Assertion in all those was the truth . 3. But I imagine this following might be the occasion of the report . Dr. Kendal had some acquaintance with and interest in the said Arch-Bishop , and he having written two disputations against me , I had answered the first , and had drawn up part of the answer to the second : But Mr. Vines and Dr. Kendal desired me to meet at Bishop Vshers lodging in order to the ending of our difference . There the Bishop motioned that we should promise to write against each other no more : which we did , and I cast by what I had begun . But yet Doct. K. after in a Latine Treatise broke that promise ( which occasioned my verses in the end of my Dispute of the Object of Justifying Faith against Mr. Warner , which some understood not . ) Now it is not unlikely that the Bishop might say that if Dr. K. and I persisted in that Dispute , it would but trouble the Church . I am sure he said no more to me , nor so much . As for Mr. D.'s judgement , I deserve not the honour he giveth me , but indeed I think that of most men that I have had to deal with in that kind , he is one of the unfittest to make himself a Judge , who is fit to meddle with Controversie , or to judge himself much fitter than me . Doubtless his knowledge hath cost him much less time and study than mine hath done me ; And if his advantage be in greater illumination of Gods Spirit , as I seriously profess to fear lest I should want it , for my manifold sins against the Spirit , and therefore have cause most earnestly to beg for it ; so I could wish that he had better manifested it , than in these two Voluems he hath done : at least by an ordinary humane friendship to historical truth . For my part I had never more published any thing in this cause , if my sense of the hurt and danger of their Separations and Divisions of Christians , and destruction of Love and Peace , had not moved me much more , than any great zeal against bare rebaptizing , in it self considered , especially if hypothetically done . Postscript . § . 1. SInce the writing of this , I have perused Smaragdus , Peter Abbas Cluniacensis , and Bernard , which were not before at hand . And I shall give you a true account of their testimonies . I. As for Smaragdus , I never before read him , but on this occasion getting his exposition on the Epistles and Gospels I find that there is a great agreement indeed among Mr. Danvers witnesses , that in his citations he is still like himself . § . 2. Smaragdus on 1 Pet. 2. in oct . Pasch . fol. 87. saith , [ Sinite parvulos venire ad me , talium enim est regnum coelorum : Hanc enim sanctam , puram & innocentem infantiam , per baptismi gratiam casta mater gignit Ecclesia ] That is [ suffer little children to come to me , for of such is the Kingdom of God ; For this holy pure and innocent Infancie , the Church their chast Mother doth by the grace of Baptism beget . ] § . 3. And on Mar. 16. in Ascens . fol. 101. [ Cum autem dicatur , Qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur , quid hic dicimus de parvulis , qui per aetatem adhuc credere non valent ? Nam de majoribus nulla quaestio est : In Ecclesia ergo salvatoris per alios parvuli credunt , sicut ex aliis ea quae illis in baptismo remittuntur peccata traxerunt . ] That is , [ He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved , &c. But when it is said , But he that believeth not shall be condemned , what say we here to little ones who by their age are not yet able to believe ? For of the elder there is no question . Therefore in the Church of our Saviour , little ones believe by others , as from others they have drawn those sins which in Baptism are forgiven to them . § . 4. And in sab . Pentecost . in Act. 19. fol. 103 , 104. having at large opened how Catechumens were instructed before Baptism , and described approvedly their Ceremonies , of crossing , breathing on them , exorcizing , salt , the Creed to be recited and understood , he addeth , [ Quia ergo Parvuli , necdum ratione utentes , haec minime capere possunt , oportet ut cum ad imtelligibilem aetatem pervenerint , doceantur & fidei sacramenta & confessionis mysteria , ut veraciter credant , & diligenti cura custodiant confessionem suam . Plane diximus ; quia quamvis illi necdum loqui possunt , pro illis & confitentur & loquuntur qui eos de lavacro fontia suscipiunt . Nec immerito : dignum est ut qui aliorum peccatis obnoxii sunt , aliorum etiam confessione , per ministerium baptismatis , remissionem originalium percipiant peccatorum . ] That is [ But seeing little ones that have not yet the use of reason , cannot receive these things , it is meet that when they come to age of understanding they be taught both the Sacraments of faith and the mystery of confession , that they may truly believe , and by diligent care may keep their confession : And not undeservedly : It is meet ( or worthy ) that they who are obnoxious to ( or by ) others sins , by others confession also should by the mystery of Baptism , receive the pardon of original sins . ] § . 5. Yet it 's true that this same Author doth oft call for confession from the adult , and perswade men not to trust to meer outward baptizing , as may be seen on 1 Cor. 9. fol. 30. &c. But he could reconcile this to Infant-Baptism , though Mr. D. cannot . See him further fol. 85. c. in Math. 28. and fol. 85. in 1 Pet. 3. & fol. 84. & fol. 19. in Isa . 60. § . 6. II. As to Pet. Cluniacensis ( another Abbot near the same time , and contemporary with Bernard ) he is the most plausible of all Mr. D.'s witnesses , as against two men , Pet. Bruis , and Henry : But , 1. Fol. 1. Epist , 1. he writeth Twenty years after Peters sowing his doctrine . 2. And though Henry lived in his time , yet fol. 2. he saith , [ Sed quia eum ita sentire vel praedicare , nondum mihi plene fides facta est , differo responsionem quousque & horum quae dicuntur indubitatam habeant certitudinem ] that is , ( having called Henry the heir of Peters wickedness , who rather changed than mended his Devillish doctrine ) But because I have not yet testimony fully credible ( or am not sure ) that he so thinketh , and preacheth , I delay my answer till I can have undoubted certainty of the things reported ] . By which it is plain that he knew neither of them , but went by that same , which commonly then slandered them . § . 7. 3. And in his first Proposal fol. 7. ( of Hoffmeisters Edit . ) he reciteth the words supposed to be theirs , in which they deny as much the Salvation as the Baptism of all Infants . Ex his domini verbis Mar. 16. aperte monstrant , nullum nisi crediderit , & baptizatus fuerit , hoc est , nisi Christianam fidem habuerit & baptismum perceperit , posse salvari : Nam non alterum horum , sed utrumque pariter salvat : Vnde Infantes , licet à vobis baptizentur , quia tamen credere , obstante aetate , non possunt , nequaquam salvantur . ] So that it is the salvation of any Infants that they principally here deny ; accounting Baptism needful to salvation . § . 8. And fol. 8. He addeth their next charge that fama vulgavit , fame reported , that they wholly believed not Christ , Prophets , or Apostles , the Old or New Testament . Sed quia fallaci rumorum monstro non facile assensum praebere debeo ( maxime cum quidam vos totum divinum Canonem abjecisse affirment , alii quaedam ex ipso vos suscepisse contendant ) culpare vos de incertis nolo ] : Where he fully confesseth that he knew them not , but went by fame , and that he suspected himself this fame to be false , calling it a Monster , and proving it contrary to it self , and professing that he ought not to believe it : But yet lest it should be true , he goeth on to prove the truth of the Scriptures , as he doth Infants salvation and Baptism . § . 9. Now I leave it to the Reader , among many uncertainties , which of these he will believe most probable : 1. That all the parties were slandered : 2. Or that Peter and Henry were slandered by occasion of the mixed Manichees , or by the vulgar lying levity or Popish malice . 3. Or whether Peter and Henry were guilty as some now , though the rest were not . 4. Or whether they and the Albigenses and Waldenses , really denyed all Infants salvation and Baptism ( their very pretended words being cited . ) 5. Or whether they were slandered as to Infant-salvation , and not as to their Baptism . 6. Or whether all this rose not from their denying the salvation of the children of all the wicked , as ex opere operato , by the Baptism of the Priest , and their refusing to bring their own children to be Baptized by such Priests , and their telling the wicked at age , that their Infant-Baptism would not save them . Believe which of these you find most cause . § . 10. III. As for Bernard , 1. Though a holy man , yet his conceit that Papal unity was necessary , and that the Dissenters caused confusion , transported him with such prejudice against them , as we have now against the vilest Sects . 2. He was acquainted with Cluniacensis and might believe him . 3. He took things on trust as he did . 4. He chargeth even the secret hereticks that he writes against , as holding it unlawful to swear , and yet lawful to forswear , rather than reveal their case : Serm. 65. 5. And that in secret they are reported to commit filthy wickedness , not to be named . 6. That he heareth that some of them reject Pauls writings , and the Old Testament . 7. That they lived scandalously with Women : and he talketh as if it were impossible for men and women to dwell together , and yet to be chast . 8. Yet sheweth that he most uncharitably suspected them , saying , [ Si fidem interroges , nihil Christianius ; si conversationem , nihil irreprehensibilius ; & quae loquitur , factis probat : Videas hominem in testimonium suae fidei frequentare Ecclesiam , honorare presbyteros , offerre munus suum , confessionem facere , sacramentis communicare ( and did they deny Infant-Baptism then ? ) Quid fidelius ? Jam quod ad vitam moresque spectat , neminem concutit , neminem circumvenit , neminem supergreditur , pallent ora jejuniis , panem non comedit otiosus ; operatur manibus quibus vitam sustentat : Vbi jam Vulpos ? ] And what 's the proof against them , [ Vinearum demolitio testatur vulpem : Mulieres relictis viris , & viri dismissis uxoribus , ad istos se conferunt : clerici & sacerdotes populis Ecclesiisque relictis intonsi & barbati apud eos , inde textores & textrices plerumque inventi sunt . Annon gravis demolitio ista ? Annon opera vulpium haec ? ] And the way he appoints for their purgation is to put women out of their houses . 9. Serm. 66. he chargeth them for being against Marriage , yea that they took filthiness to be only in having Wives . 10. And with forbidding to Marry , they joyned abstaining from meats : and so holding devilish doctrine : But that some allowed Marriage only to Virgins , but not second Marriages : That they abhorred Milk , and all that was made of it , and all that was procreated by generation , and that ( de insania Manichaei . ) That they held themselves only to be the Church , and derided them that Baptized Infants : ( yet he himself writes largely Ep. ad Hug. de Sancto Victore , for the salvation of persons that have faith , and die unbaptized through necessity ; alledging Ambrose , Austin , Cyprian ; And concludeth Infants saved by others faith , as they were guilty by others sin . ) 11. In Epist . ad Hildefonsum he saith , of Henry by name , that he was an Apostate , that made a trade of preaching , to live by in necessity , and what money he could get of simple people and women more than found him food , he spent in playing at dice , or other more filthy uses : that after his daies applause by the people he was found at night with whores : that he thus left every where such a stink behind him , that he could come but once to a place , naming many Cities . Now let the Reader judge if Bernard be to be believed what a man this was : If not , what his testimony is worth . AS I am writing this , the Hawkers are crying under my window , Mr. Baxters Arguments for Believers , &c. The men that cite Authors at this rate , cite me against my self , with the like confidence : Because I have proved in my Treat . of Confirmation , the necessity of personal Profession in the Adult : And he that will think that such dealing as this doth need an answer , and that if the Adult must make an intelligent profession , Infants must not be Baptized , let him be ignorant ; for I have not time to satisfie him . FINIS . Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity , in Answer to Mr. Henry Danvers , with a full detection of his Misrepresentation of Divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern , &c. By O. Wills : Sold by Jo. Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A26959-e34100 * Satan will not consent that you should soberly read the Books . Notes for div A26959-e36590 * Including the Donatists . * It seems by some citations out of it after that he hath read it , and yet speaks thus ! * Which the Heathens used to Children . Notes for div A26959-e46560 * Not so much as Mr. Tombes is among the Anabaptists for writing for Parish Communion . Notes for div A26959-e50430 * p. 372. ed 2. Read Rom. 14. and judge . Notes for div A26959-e53990 * That is of death . * viz. If he will. * That is , determine an uncertainty .