Second Reply to Baxter, Part 1 · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2
CHAP. I. Shews, that Mr Baxter hath so far owned the book he so scornfully writes against, that of the 14. chapters it contains he has justifyed 12 if not 13. of them.
DR. Pierce in his New discoverer tels us, that M. Baxter (from his writings which he quotes) having confest himself to be guilty of pride and prejudice p. 92. And also that a spirit of keeness (or calumny as the Dr sayth) dwelt in him, p. 258. wonders not therefore his writings should abound with so much bitterness to friend and foe with whom he contended, resolving therefore as in his preface not to render him evil for evil, nor to vie slanders with such a man of tongue, for that as he saith would be but to strive who should be most impious.
Therefore it being as it seems so much the temper of the man, his mode of treating me in that way of rhetorical rayling and contemptuous reviling is no other then the usual measure he hath meeted out to his Antagonists, and therefore the less to be regarded.
But inasmuch as he hath proclaymed my book to contain such a noysom Fardel, and to be writ with so much temerity, and falshood, that a sober Turk, and modest Pagan might blush to own it.
I have therefore in the first place thought it meet in order to my just vindication, to remember him, and to tell the world that that very book he so nauseously contemns, he has himself in words at length, and by good argument, substantially owned and justifyed, not only in the witnes it bears for believers, but against infants Baptism also, which takes in the whole of the book in all its parts: and to the better discovery thereof I shall first represent you with a brief scheme of the book, and then particularly shew you, that what he hath not grosly abused and falsly fathered upon me in the 14. chapter he hath sub…tantially owned in the other chapters.
That book then you must know consists of 2 parts, the first proving the Baptism of believers only in 7. Chapters, the second disproving that of infants Baptism in 7. more, of which 14. Chapters, 11. of them are doctrinal viz. deducing and proving each particular from the scripture, upon which the main stress is layd; the other 3. Chapters are historical, demonstrating from antiquity, and humane authority, the truth of believers, and error of infant Baptism; and which historical part (as I have said again and again) is not urged for probation but illustration only; and that because antiquity hath been so much boasted of; it may appear we have something to say for our selves rherein also.
Now that Mr Baxter hath of these 14. chapters, by words at length, and good arguments subscribed to 12. if not 13. of them is my next work to make manifest, wherein you'l finde the brief contents of each of these 13 chapters, and the owning he gives thereto, annexed to each, and which I beg the readers patience to do, with the arguments more at large from himself then I have yet done, and that for the following reasons.
First, because yet they stand as remark't by us for unanswered arguments from his own pen in full confirmation of ours, in positive contradiction to his own writings, notwithstanding all the provocations he has had from Mr Tombs, and my self to reconcile the same, if he can; and being so agreeable to his usual, method of writing, having as Dr. Peirce often told him [and made good] in the said book, writ for and against popery, for and against Episcopacy, for and against Presbytery, for and against Independency, for and against Erastanisme, and this abundantly makes good how he has writ for and against Anabaptisme.
Secondly, that it may be seen, and read of all, that much of his barbarous and inhumane dealing with me, is but for saying the same things that himself hath said before in the substance of this controversie; and which I desire may stand as a monument upon record, betwixt him and me, as a full vindication from his own pen.
Thirdly that with the substance of my book in this Epitomy thus repeated, Mr. B's substantial arguments and full Scripture-authorities confirming the same may be reveiwed also, which may be of use to some of his admirers who may be induced to read and consider what he says to the point, when they will slight the same things spoken by others.
And as to the 14th Chapter how notoriously he has abused me, himself, and the truth therein, you will have the account in the 2d. Chapter.
The heads of each of those 13. Chapters, and Mr. Baxters confirmation thereof, here follows in order, viz. CHAP. I.
Treat. of Baptism. p. 1, 2, 3, 4.PRoves from the order of Christs Commission and Institution of Baptisme, Math. 28.18.19. that persons are first to be taught in the faith or made disciples or beleivers, and then afterwards to be baptized, and not first baptized and made Disciples after, whereby adult persons capable of instruction are necessarily understood to be the only proper subjects of that ordinance, and not ignorant babes that have no knowledge nor understanding (there being but one commission for our one baptism) Treat. of Baptism, p. 1. 2. 3. 4.
In confirmation whereof you have Mr. Baxter thus expressing himself, In his 2. disputation of right to Sacraments. p. 149. 150.Mr B's 2. disp. of Right to Sacramen. p. 149, 150
This saith he speaking of this Text is not like some occasional historical mention of Baptism; but it is the very commission it self of Christ to his Disciples, for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders.
The first task is to make disciples which are by Mark called beleivers.
The second work is, to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation.
The third work is, to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ.
To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order, for where can we expect to finde it, if not here, I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith even saving that must go before baptism, and the profession whereof the Minister must expect; but is it possible that an ignorant babe can observe this order and answer this expectation; of which see what is to this purpose cited by Calvin and Piscator: viz. Calvin upon Mat. 3.6. saith, Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to baptism, confession of sin, is required, otherwise the whole action is nothing else but sport. Piscator, upon Mark: 1.4. saith, it is called the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins because John preached the remission of sins to the penitent believers.
CHAP. II.
Proves that the Apostles and disciples of Christ in obedience to this comission did teach repentance and faith as the necessary pre-requisites and qualifications to every one that was to be baptized, Act. 2.37.8.36.37.10.42.16.29. treat. baptism. p. 5. 6.Treat. p. 5, 6.
To which Mr. Baxter thus assents in the 2. disput. p. 54. 55. 56. Mr B. ibid. p 55, 56. &c.viz. If John Baptist required the profession of true repentance in men before he would baptize them, then so must we, but John did so Mark. 1.3.4. Math. 3.6. and thus Jesus Christ did by preaching repentance prepare men for Baptism, and for his kingdom, as John before; as appears. John 3.21. John 4.1. Math. 3.17. Mark. 1.15.
And to that end he sent his Apostles and other preachers Mark. 6.12. Act. 17.30. Lu. 24.47. That repentance and remission of sins might be preached to all nations in his name, And Baptism which is for the obsignation of remission of sins according to Gods appointment comes after repentance; as Act. 2.37. when the Jews were prickt in their heart (which was a preparatory repentance) and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and bretheren what shall we do, Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
So that we must require and expect true evangelical repentance to be professed before Baptism for verse. 41. it is added then, they that gladly received the word were baptized; so that he baptized none that to outward appearance did not gladly receive the word, which could not be without a profession of repentance: and he that perswades them to repent and be baptized, doth in the next chapter v. 19. require them to repent, &c. And as the work of general preaching to the unbelieving world is sometime called a discipling of nations which goeth before baptizing them, preaching of repentance and commanding all men every where to repent Act. 17.30. an opening of mens eyes & turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. vers. 20. And it was the sum of Peters preaching to the unbaptized, repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Act. 20.21. So that 'tis apparent, that they took the profession or appearance both of faith and repentance as prerequesite to Baptism.
CHAP. III.
Evidenceth believers Baptism to be the only Baptism from the example and practise of the primitive saints, Act. 8.12.18, 8, 22, 14. Treat. p. 7. 8. 9. 10.Treat. p. 7, 8, 9, 10.
The truth whereof is most fully and amply confirmed by Mr Baxter in his 2d dispute, p. 149. &c.Mr B. ibid. p. 149. &c. thus.
If there can be no example given in scripture of any one that was Baptized without the profession of a saving faith, nor any precept for so doing, then must not we baptize any without it: but the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the consequent, which he thus proves.
1. John required the profession of true repentance before Baptism as before.
2. Christ in his preaching and commission enjoyned faith and repentance as a prerequisite thereto.
3. That saving faith was required of the Jewes, is shewed already for Act. 2.38.41.
4. The Samaritans believed and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Act. 8.12.
5. Ʋpon no other condition was the Eunuch baptized Act 8.37.
6. Paul was baptized after true conversion, Act. 9.18.
7. The holy ghost fell on the Gentiles before they were baptized, Act. 10.44.
8. Lydias heart was opened before she was baptized.
9. The example of the Jaylor is very full to the resolution of the question in hand. Act. 16.30.31.33.34.
10. Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized.
11. Those in Act. 19.5. were baptized after they believed in Jesus Christ, and what all the Churches were supposed to be to whom the Apostle wrote, I have shewed before.
In a word I know of no one word in scripture that giveth us the least intimation that ever man was baptized without the profession of a saving faith, or that giveth the least incouragement to baptize any upon any other faith.
CHAP. IV.
Maintains believers to be the only subjects of Baptism from the spiritual ends of the ordinance, viz. To evidence repentance; figure out present regeneration; to ratify the covenant betwixt God and the believer; to testify a good conscience; to represent the union betwixt Christ and the believers; and to give the due orderly admission into the visible Church. Treat. of Baptism p. 11. to p. 26.Treat. p. 11. to 26.
The verity whereof is substantially made good in each particular by Mr Baxter in his 2d disput. p. 56. &c.
1. That the testifying repentance Repentance.was one great end he thus proves; If Jesus Christ hath by scriptures, precept and example, directed us to baptize those that profess true repentance and no other, then we must baptize them and no other, but the antecedent is true, so is the consequent which is made good Math. 4.17. Mark. 1.16. Act. 17.30. Lu. 24.47.
2. That the figuring present regeneration Regeneration.is another, he thus confirms, p. 117. 118. Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present regeneration, therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred but to such; the Major is plain, John 3.5. Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdome of God; and so in Titus. 3.5. where it is called the laver of Regeneration.
3. To represent the covenant entred into betwixt God To enter covenant with Godand man thereby, which he thus proves, p. 68. That it is the Instituted nature of Baptism, to be in general a professing sign, as well as an ingaging sign for the future, that it is essential to it to be significant & obligatory on our part, as well as on Gods part is commonly confest, for first the minister doth baptize him in the name of the father, son, and holy Ghost; and the party doth consent thereto; as first, by voluntarily offering himself to be so baptized, 2ly voluntarily receiving that Baptism; and his offering of himself hereto goeth before the Ministers baptizing him, and his reception of that Baptism is essential to it: so that Baptism essentially containeth on his part a signal profession of consent to that which is meant in the form used by the Minister, viz. I baptize thee in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit; and that is, that God the father, son and holy spirit be mine and I be theirs in the relati…ns in which they are offered in the gospel to mankinde, and which is here sealed, and so a mutual consent, which the signs are instituted by Christ to signifie, Christ offereth himself to be related to me as my Jesus Christ; and by offering my self to be baptized, and by voluntary receiving of it, I do actually profess my acceptation of his offer that is of himself so offered, and so the father and holy spirit in like manner, so that it is a most clear case, that Baptism as Baptism according to its instituted nature and use, doth contain the persons actual signal profession of present assent to the truth of the Gospel and acceptation of God the Father, son and holy Ghost as therein offered, and it contayneth an actual signal profession that we then presently consecrate or devote or dedicate our selves to the Father son and holy spirit in the aforesaid relations.
Secondly, another part of Baptism is the Ministers washing the person, and the person first offring himself to be washed, and after actually receiving, it doth thereby signally profess his consent; now this washing doth essentially signifie our washing from our former filth of sin, together with the guilt, our putting away the old man which is corrupt, according to deceitful lusts, &c.
4. The answer of a good conscience The answer of a good conscience.another great end of Baptism, he thus confirms. 2d Disput. p. 159. viz.
If according to the institution, the answer of a good conscience must be joyned with Baptism for the attaining of its end, then must we admit of none that profess not the answer of a good conscience; but the former is certain from the text, for Baptism is said to save, that is its appointed use, yet not the external washing, but the answer of a good conscience doth it; therefore this is the necessary conjunction, & without it Baptism cannot attain its end but it is to be receaved only in order to the attainment of its end, and therefore never in a way by which the end is apparently not attainable, [but how an infant is capable to be in the exercise of a good conscience herein to the attaining of this end of Baptism will be Mr. Baxters part to discover, if he hath not wholy renounced infants Baptism].
What the answer of a good conscience is, the common expositors (as he tells us) fully confirm, viz. The Assemblies annotations saith, that by the answer of a good conscience we may understand that unfeigned faith whereof they made confession at their Baptism, and whereby their consciences were purified, and received remission of their sins.
And some (he saith) understand by the answer of a good conscience, that covenant whereunto they entred at their Baptism, the embracing whereof they testifyed by their unfeigned confession of their faith.
5. Another end of Baptism is to represent a believers union with Christ, To hold out union with Christ.which he thus ratifyes. 2. disput. p. 98.
If it be the appoynted use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our mariage with Christ, or to seal or confirm our union with him or ingrafting into him, then must we Baptize none that profess not justifying faith, because this is necessarily prerequisite, and no other can pretend to union, mariage or ingrafting into Christ: both the antecedent and consequence are evident in Gal. 3.27.28.29. for as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heires according to promise: here we see that it is an accidental or seperable thing, for Baptism to be our visible entrance into Christ, our puting him on our admittance by solemnization into the state of those children and heirs according to the promise, for (as all own) if we be truely baptized we are baptized into Christ, then are we Christs and have put on Christ and are alone in Christ, and Abrahams seed according to promise.
6. That other end of Baptism, of being an orderly entrance into the visible Church, To admit into the visible Church.he also maketh good, viz. Plain scripture proof, p. 24.
As a soldier before listing, and a king before Crowning and taking his oath; so are we Church-members before Baptism: but as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the army must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign, so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism; is proved thus.
If we have neither precept nor example in scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members, but only by Baptism, then, all that must be admitted visible members, must ordinarily be baptized; but since Baptism was instituted (or established) we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way (but a constant precept and example for admitting this way, therefore all that must be admitted visible members must be Baptized.
I know not what in shew of reason can be said to this, by those that renounce not scripture, for what man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both, yet they that will admit members into the visible Church without Baptism do so.
CHAP. V.
2 Treat. p. 6. 27. 28.Proves the Baptism of believers to be the only Baptism from the new testament dispensation so different from the old, the Church under the old, consisting of the carnal seed, and wherein the ignorant and ungodly, the impenitent and unbeliever and their seed were esteemed members and subjects of circumcission, and to partake of the carnal ordinances under the law as well as the godly and their seed, whcreas the believer and penitent ones, the spiritual seed of Abraham were to be reputed the only right subjects of Baptism and members of the gospel Church.
In confirmation whereof you have Mr Baxter in his 3d dispute. p. 303. Mr B. 3. disput. p. 303.expressing himself after this manner, viz. In answer to Mr Blakes 7th argument, that the children of notorious ungodly Parents had right to circumcision before Christs Incarnation whereof he mentions Hezekiah the son of wicked Amon, and Josiah the son of wiched Manasseh, therefore the children of notorious ungodly parents, have right to Baptism, to which Mr. Baxter saith,
It is certain, that the fabrick of the Jewish politie especially the grounds and reasons of all Gods Institutions of those times, are so imperfectly known by us, that it is utterly unfit to reduce so many clear Gospel arguments to one dark one, from those laws: For it is a most certain rule, that in all our disquisitions we must reduce uncertainties to certainties, and not certainties to uncertainties, our arguments must be, notioribus ad minus nota, it being very dangerous, as Mr. Blake confesseth, to argue from meer analogy, and not from the ground of the Institution. And how dark are those grounds in some cases to us?
Yet afterwards in discussing of that question whom must we take for notoriously ungodly? p. 326. Mr. Baxter seems in his criticall way of distinction not only to come about to Mr. Blake, but hath given great advantage to a prophane spirit, and for which Dr Peirce severely reproves him in his New Discoverer p. 62. for affirming that to be notoriously ungodly or unsanctified, a man must be guilty of more sin then Peter was in denying and forswearing Christ; of more sin then Lot was, who was drunk two nights together, and committed incest with his own daughters, and a greater sinner then Solomon with his 700. wives and 300 Concubines, and gross Idolotries, when his heart was turned away from the Lord God of Israel.
CHAP. VI.
Treat. p. 29.Proves believers, to be the only subjects of Baptism from the constitution of the primitive Churches, none being admitted in them but such as by baptism were joined thereto, and whereof an account is from most of the Churches mentioned in the new testament.
As to Mr. Baxters confirmation of this Chapter, we need only to remember you, how fully he hath already proved, that there is neither precept nor example for any that were baptized in the new testament, but such as made profession of faith and repentance, and that there was neither precept nor example that any were admitted as visible members into the Churches but by baptism; and for instances thereof mentions particularly most of the Churches in the new testament, as before; and which we shall conclude with his citation out of Calvin, to which he subscribes, p. 205. viz. That baptism as received is the seal of our faith as it is the seal of Gods promise, as administred. 2ly. That the constant order is, that baptism follow faith. 3ly. And that it is no better then an impious prophanation of it, if it go without faith; that is saith Mr. Baxter, 1st. if the party seek it without the presence of faith. 2ly. if the pastor administer it without the profession of faith.
CHAP. VII.
Proves from antiquity that instruction and profession of faith and repentance was necessary to precede Baptism, Treat. p. 20, &c.and that the Children of Christians had their Baptism deferd till they were able to give an account of their own faith.
Which Mr. Baxter fully confirms, by the account he gives us in his Saints rest,Mr. B's St. Rest, c. 8. sect. 8. out of Iustin Martyrs 2d. Ap. That the practise of the saints and Churches in the 2d. Cent. was to baptize after the profession of faith and repentance. And which (saith Mr Baxter) is you see no new way. And that only such as made profession thereof were then to be baptized, he further instanceth in his Saints Rest; p. 1. c. 8. Saying, that Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian who lived (as he saith) in the 2d. and 3d. Cent. do all of them affirm, that in the primitive times none were baptized without an express covenant, wherein they renounced the world, the flesh and devil, and ingaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him.
And that children of Christians were not baptized till they were able to give an account of their faith in those first Cent.: he tells us in his Christian Direct. p. 827. Christ. Directory p. 827.affirming that Austin and many children of Christian parents were baptized at age. And in his Confirmation p. 26. The constant practise of the Church hath given us by infallible tradition as full assurance of the order of Baptism, and in particular of an express profession and oovenant then made, as of any point that by the hands of the Church can be received by us. The 2d. part disproves Infants-Baptism and that it is no ordinance of Jesus Christ, in 7. Chapters.
CHAP. I.
Treat. p. 89. &c.Observes the Scriptures silence about Infants-Baptism with the necessity of Scripture warranty to authorize every ordinance of Christ.
To which Mr Baxter confesseth in his Plain Scrip. Pr. p. 3. Mr B. plain Scripture. p. 3.That infants-Baptism is not plainly determined in the Scriptures, and therefore it must needs be a difficult point, and therefore in his defence of the principles of love, speaking in favour of the Anabaptists, saith, that he having had more invitation to study the point throughly, and to treat of it largely then most that are offended at them; that they must give me leave to say that he knoweth it to be a very difficult point.
CHAP. II.
Treat. p. 87.Proving that in antiquity there is no authentick testimony for the practise of Infants-Baptism as an ordinance of Christ for 300 years, nor any humane authority enjoyning it till 400. years after Christ.
Which Mr Baxter thus confirms in his Defence of the principles of love, p. 7. Mr B's Defence, &c. p. 7.That he knows that in the days of Tertullian, Nazianzen and Austin, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring their children when and at what age they pleased, and that none were forced against their consciences therein, and that he knew not that our rule or religion is ehanged, or that we are grown any wiser or better then they. And in his last piece called More proofs. p. 188. saith, 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 neeessity 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, Jewes and Gentiles, that the case of Infants was so, postponed, and taken but as an appendix to the baptism of the adult, as that it was thought less needfull to give it a particular express mention in the records and history of the Church.
CHAP. III.
Evidenceth the erroneous grounds both as to fabulous traditions and mistaken Scripture, T. p. 132.upon which Infants-Baptism hath been founded.
As to the ancient Scripture, upon which the Fathers, especially Austin, and those after him, & the Papists to this day, so much found infants-Baptism, Mr B. Animad. p. 106.viz. to save and work grace from Jo. 3.5. Mr. Baxter doth very much disown in his Animadversions upon Mr. Bedfords Baptizmal Regeneration, and particularly: p. 306. tells us, that Baptism it self is no instrument to effect real grace to the soul of an Infant, nor can work no such cause, because the water is not a subject capable of receiving grace, or of conveying it to the soul, it cannot approach or touch the soul, nor infuse grace in it if it could. And as to several fabulous traditions upon which a stress has been laid, to make it good from Dionysius the Areopagite, Ecclesiast. Hirarchy, Iustin Martyrs Responses, he disowns as forged and fabulous, particularly that of Iustin Martyrs responses, in his Plain Scripture p. 155. tells us, that the common alledged place in Respons. Qu. 56. ad orthodox. though a place most express for Infants-Baptism, and the book antient, yet it is either spurious or interpolate.
CHAP. IV.
T. p. 181.Proves that the ordained ceremony of Baptism is in this of Infants altered and changed, and another rite introduced, quite contrary to the signification of the word, nature of the ordinance, and manifest practise thereof, not only in the Apostles times, but many ages after.
Which Mr. Baxter in his 2d disput. p. 70. Mr. …, 2. Dis. p. 70.seems fully to grant, where he tells us; quoad modum, as to the manner, it is commonly confest by us to the Anabaptists, as our Commentators declare, that in the Apostles times the baptized were dipt over head in the water, and that this signified their profession, both of believing the burial and resurection of Christ, and of their own presence renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the Apostle expoundeth in the forecited texts of Col. 3. and Rom. 6. and though we have thought it lawfull to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water, yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it.
CHAP. V.
Discovers several mischiefs, T. p. 210.absurdities and contradictions, that are justly to be charged upon the practise. The which Mr. Baxter by substantiall Argument, M. B. Argmakes good, and confirms to us.
For if to baptize a person without a profession of faith and repentance, be expresly c…ntr…ry to Christs Commission, to the Apostles teaching, to the example of all the primitive Saints baptized in scripture, if against all the ends of the ordinanee, &c. And a baptism Christ hath not appointed, yea ridiculous, impious, and prophane, as Mr. Baxter hath so fully asserted; then surely to baptize an infant, so uncapable, to profess faith and repentance, brings all those absurdities by his own grant upon it; let him avoyd it if he can.
CHAH. VI.
Detects the nullity and utter insignificancy of infants Baptism as wanting the right subject-matter, viz. a profes d believer,T. p. 315. and the due instituted form dipping; as to the truth whereof let all men judge whether Mr Baxter hath not fully granted, whilst he hath so fully owned, that none but a profest believer that is capable to answer the end of the ordinance is the proper subject thereof, and that sprinkling was not the instituted form, but changed since the first times from dipping.
And the nullity whereof, which if I mistake not he hath substantially owned in this very case which he puts in his Christian Directory, p. 817,B's Christian Direct. p. 817. viz. Are they really baptized according to the Englisb Lyturgy and Canons? where the parent seemeth excluded and those to consent for the Infant which have no power to do it.
Wherein by his strong objections he makes in the case, and his weak answers thereto, he hath wholly given it up, as I have made appear in the Treatise p. 217. to which he hath made no return, and therefore till he do he must not think it much, that we conclude, that he takes it for granted that the Baptism so given is a perfect nullity.
Thus you see how fully in words at length, and by substantial Argument, he hath justifyed what I have affirmed from Scripture & antiquity, in these 12 or 13. Chapters: both as to proving believers the only subjects of Baptism, as the disproving of infants, as well in the doctrinal as historical part, so that he cannot smite me for the same but he must wound himself.
For 1st, as to the doctrinal or scriptural part have I proved believers the only proper subjects of Baptism, from the order of the commission, the Apostles teaching, the primitive saints practise, the new testament dispensation, the constitution of the primitive Church; and hath not he done the same most amply fully and substantially?
And 2ly. Have I disproved the baptizing of infants from the silence of the Scripture, fabulous traditions, mistaken grounds and scripture; change of the rite, mischiefs and absurdityes, nullity, and insignificancy of such a practise, and hath not he by words at length, and good consequence done the fame?
And 2ly, as to the historical part, have I, 1st; from antiquity made good, that profession of faith was in the first ages required before Baptism: and that the children of Christians were not baptized till aged: and hath not he fully done the same by ample testimony from antiquity?
2ly. Have I proved that baptizing of infants was not as a Church ordinance judged necessary for the first 300. years; and hath not he fully done the same?
Therefore for him to render me odious for asserting the same things he himself hath so fully maintained, is just such dealing as Dr Peirce observes he meeted out to Grotius, as blackening and contemning him for being a Papist, when he himself in his writings appears to be no other, (as the Dr saith) in his pre-advertisment to his New discoverer.
'Tis true I prove him to be a papist by 4. Arguments, but they are arguments only ad hominem, and professedly urged by a prosopopaeia, and only in order to his conviction, that more may be said against him, then he can say against Grotius, and that his injuries to Grotius do only prove his own hurts: and having thus proved him to be a papist, I freely profess to believe him none.
So we may say his words and arguments prove him an Anabaptist, he justifying them by these Arguments both in their principles and practise, for which nevertheless he persecutes and reproaches us, which proves him none; So unhappy has he been in his polemical writings.
Obj. But I know it will be said that these Arguments taken out of his 2d. disput. Dr Tombes and I have injuriouslly represented and improved against him, contrary to his declared sense and intention, for when he speaks of profession necessary before Baptism he means only in adult persons and not otherwise in Infants, then as the believing parents make the profession for them in their name and stead.
Answ. To which it hath again and again been told him that he hath no injury done him (no more then Bishop Morton did the Romanist, to improve the Papists contradictions for the Protestant cause) by so improving his own words and arguments so substantially brought from the Scripture for believers against his slight suggestions and unproved dictates for Infants-Baptism; for though it is true he might mean (as Mr. T. tells him) to beat down Mr. Blakes tenent of baptizing upon a dogmatical faith, yet the middle terms and proofs beats down his own tenet of Infants-Baptism, and directs into the right way of restoring believers Baptism, and so his Arguments prove not only against Mr. Blake for a profession of a justifying faith to every one that is to be baptized, but that that profession, be personal also, as his own Arguments fully evince, and which therefore fully prove against himself in that his imputative profession, or others professing for the baptized.
For instance take 2. or 3. of his Arguments, as first, from the order of Christs commission: If to baptize after the profession faith or being made believers (as he explains it from Mark 16.) is the order that Christ has appointed, then we must baptize such and no other, but so has Christ appointed in his commission; therefore must the minister expect such a profession in every one he baptizeth, otherwise he inverts the order of Christs Commission, doth the thing that is ridiculous, yea impious and prophane, and what anabaptist can say more?
But is not the Baptizing of an Infant from whom the Minister can expect no profession, a contradicting the commission? an inverting the order of Christ therein, that requiring a profession before, and this device of Mr B. admitting it after.
2ly. From the Apostles doctrine an… examples of such they baptized, see how he reasons: If neither precept or example in Scripture be for the baptizing any but upon the profession of faith and repentance, then we must not baptize any without it, but (saith he) we have neither precept or example for the baptizing of any other; the precept he proves from John, Christ, and the Apostles preachings, and the example he gives for the same throughout the new testament, whereof he produceth 11. famous instances, witnessing that none were baptized but upon their personal profession of faith and repentance, and therefore concludes we must baptize none without it.
Which therefore not only destroys Mr Blakes notion of baptizing the child upon the profession of a wicked man for it; but Mr. Baxters also upon the profession of a godly man for it: because personal profession was required in every one that was baptized in Scripture, and therefore to baptize any without personal profession of faith, which no child is capable to give, is by his own Argument so without book, that there is no one precept or example for it in all the new Testament.
Thirdly, from the ends of Baptism, wherein he most substantially argues after this manner, as you see, viz. If Christ hath instituted no Baptism but to such who testify a present regeneration wrought in them, whereof Baptism is to be a sign; and to none but to such as are capable to enter into Covenant with God, by a marriage union with Christ (which that action lively represents an… solemnizeth) and to none but such as are capable to answer a good Conscience, which is required of every one therein, &c. then we must baptize such, and none other, and which by sound Scripture Argument he undenyably proves, and that whoever baptizeth other it is none of Christs institution; whether it is not therefore as manifest that an Infant that is so utterly uncapable to perform any of these spiritual ends is not as wholy excluded, though a profession is made for him of a justifying faith by a godly parent: as Mr. Baxter (in his Modell) excludes Mr. Blakes Infant that has only the profession of a dogmatical faith by an ungodly Parent for it? and so we might go on with the rest against his Arguments; but let these suffice.
And notwithstanding Mr. T. hath so importunatly urged him to reconcile these seeming contradictions, or to renounce his book of Infants-Baptism in his felo de se writ about 16. years since, and since about 3. years earnestly pres't him thereto by letter also, besides my several Arguments that from time to time I have urged upon him to do the truth and eimself right therein; and since by another hand else that has printed some of Mr. B's arguments for believers baptism: and therefore by all hands it has been expected from him.
Yet what at last has been brought forth but some of his old unproved dictates which he would impose upon us as a reconciliation to the contradictions aforesaid:Mr B's insignificant Answer. for all that he saith for himself therein, you'l finde in his l…st book called More-proofs, p. 286. where he thus expresseth himself, viz. But I shall maintain (and I think fully proved) that God so far taketh the childe 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 the 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, or the like; but that the Parent having the triple interest in the childe of an owner, a governour, and a lover of God by nature and grace, conjunctly alloweth and requireth the parent to dedicate the childe to God, and to consent, that he be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity, and by that covenanting consent to oblige the childe 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 sence may be sayd reputatively to have consented or covenanted by his parents which in proper speech is, they did it for him at Gods command.
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 (viz. that 2. Disputation) 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, then to write books on such insufficient invitations and expectations.
A reply to M B's Unproved Dictates.So that all we are like to have from Mr B. is this, in brief, that a childe reputatively believes, Repents, consents, and openly professeth by his believing parent, and so by consequence hath right to Baptism, and thereby becomes a member of Christ and his Church, the Parents will being (by Gods command) the childs will till he have a will of his own and so to oblige him to be a Christian when he comes to age.
But now the enquiry is, are these Christs words, or Mr B's? where is the proof of them? where is the command of God he speaks of? nay are they not expresly contrary to Christs words and to M. B's also, as so fully manifested?
And is this new devise of the parents being a surety or fide-jussor for his child,M. B's Parent and Popes Gossip much as one. any other then that of the Gossips, who by the Popes Canons was to do the same thing? viz. confess, profess, and renounce, promising and vowing to God for it, that they would teach it the Lords prayer and Creed, and see it educated in the Christian faith, only herein the Pope seem'd to have the better, they had 3. Undertakers, of whom the parent was to be none, and the reason was, because he might be an unbeliever, therefore the Church would make a certain provision for its education: but if Mr. B's parent have only a dogmatical faith, or no faith at all, the childe must miss of Baptism, and so the Church lose a member, and therefore he knows the Church of England doth as little approve of his project as the Church of Rome, who both of them (as I presume he knows) do by their Canon law exclude the Parent from being a surety for the child at the Font: and as little footsteps have we in the Scriptures to make a father a God-father as in the Canon law: the commission doth not say, Baptize the taught believing penitent parent and his ignorant unbelieving impenitent child, that may have knowledg, repentance, and faith hereafter, if the parent instruct it, and God gave it: no (saith Mr. B.) it inverts the order of the commission to baptize any without Repentance and faith and for any so to do is prophane and impious; therefore this is Mr B. against M. B. in & point blank opposition to Christs institution and in flat-contradiction to all the precepts and examples read of in the Scripture, as from his own pen appears, and to the vacating all the holy and spiritual ends of that great ordinance.
And therefore whether by the same rule he dictates for us here in this ordinance, we ought not to take his word in all other ordinances and all parts of worship also, and so embraced M. B. and turn Christ and Scripture out of doors? for if we leave the Scripture rule in one may we not also in another, and so reproach the wisdom and authority of Christ in all appointments?
Mr B's most remarkable self condemnation.But what such men deserve, that shall dare to be so impudently proud and arrogantly presumptuous to mend or alter Christs appointments, let Mr B. himself be the judge, who hath spoken so like an oracle in his 5. Disputat. about Church-Government, p. 468, &c. that what he hath therein sayd deserves to be written in letters of gold, viz. If it belong to scripture sufficiency to be the full Revelation of the will of God concerning ordinances of worship and dutyes of universal necessity, then must we not imagine that any such are left out; if Scripture be Gods law it is a perfect law. And when men dare think themselves wise enough to amend the holy Scripture is not this exceeding pride? how can man more arrogantly lift up himself then by pretending himself to be wiser then his maker and redeemer? Is it not bad enough to equalize your self with him, unless you exalt your self above him? if you do not so, what mean you by coming after to correct his laws, and mend his work, and make better laws and ordinances for his Church then he himself hath done?
And by this means we shall be brought to a loss for the rule of our Religion, for if once we leave the holy Scriptures we shall not know where to fix, if God hath not instituted all the ordinances of worship (such as sacramental and mysteral rites, &c.) that are meet to be statedly imposed on the Churches, then we are uncertain who is to be the institutor of them, the Pope will claim it, and General Councells will claim it, and Provincial Councells will claim it and Princes will claim it [and may we not say our great dictator Mr B. will claim it] and we shall be at a loss for our Religion.
And whoever he be that will be the master of our Religion, they will certainly be men, and so it will become a human thing, whereas divine wership supposeth a divine institution, and it is an act of obedience to God; & therefore supposeth a law of God; for without a divine law there cannot be obedience to God.
And impositions of man seem to be plain violations of those prohibitions of God, in which we are forbidden to add to his worship or diminish from it; as Deut. 12.32. what thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not adde thereto, nor diminish from it. Obj. But we adde nothing to the word of God though we impose some mystical rites and service as he imposeth not [such as Infants-Baptism by the imputative faith and profession of Parents.] Answer. The text d th not say, thou shalt not adde to my command, but thou shalt not adde to the thing that I command thee; it is the work, worship or ordinance that you are forbidden to adde to or diminish from, and not the word or law it self only: as when Christ in his commission sayth, Teach and baptize the believer [to adde, and their Infants also who are to be baptized first, and taught after.]
Thus I have gone through 13. of my 14. Chapters, and made them good, I doubt not from Mr. B's own words, and that being performed the controversy betwixt him and me is undoubtedly ended, being so fully given up in both parts of it, both as to Scriptures and antiquity: For though the 14th. Chapter doth comprehend particular witnesses against Infants-Baptism, yet those testimonyes that are produced from Mr. B. out of antiquity, to prove only for adult Baptism in the first ages, and that Infants-Baptism was not judged necessary, are substantial witnesses against it, should no more have been produced, and that I had been mistaken in those that I mention in the 14th Chapter.
But I doubt not therein also to acquit my self, and to make good that, as well as the other parts of my book, and thereby discover Mr. B's. most injurious and unrighteous dealing with me, and the truth, to his just rebuke and shame of face.