Truth Defended, Tract 2
Mr. Baxters Review of the ſtate of Chriſtians Infants Examined, &c.
THat Baptiſm as adminiſtred to Believers, is a Goſpel Ordinance, no man I preſume (but ſuch as reject all Ordinances) ever could deny, it having ſo expreſs a ſan…ion in the word of God. And whether any but ſuch ought to be baptized, has been an ancient Controverſy, and much agi…ated in this and the neighbouring Nations of late years: Inſomuch that any inquirer into the ſtate thereof, may eaſily …urniſh himſelf with what's alleadged on both hands; therefore I ſee no neceſſity of Polemical A…ditions
Among all the oppoſites of Antipaedobaptiſm in this Nation, no man (in my opinion) has with more virulence be ſtir'd himſelf then the … of this Review. His Books of Baptiſm ſave me the labour of demonſtrating it, And the experience he has given the world, convinces me, that he is the perſon his own Pen deſcribes in the Preface to his More proofs viz. One that can find words at length for almoſt any cauſe. And p. 45. of this Review, where he tells us; That there are but few confeſs ſo clear that a man may not talk againſt as long as his talking faculty holds out. And that Mr. Baxter hath not yet loſt this faculty, this Review plentifully inſtances
At every turn he takes in the liſts of diſpute, he rails with plenty of exclamation at ſuch as divert him from doing greater ſervice to the Church, and extort ſuch ſtri… from him — which is an outery without Cauſe; for doubtleſs he is never more in his Element, then when he is toſſing the Ball of Contention, and I think there is ſcarce any Sect that call themſelves Chriſtians, but have been made the objects of his talking faculty, and have ſelt the keeneſs of his Polemicks, and moſtly without any challenge from them. And what exploits he hath done for the Church in his peaceable Intervals is worth another Review.
It is known to ſuch as converſe with the Writings on the Subject of Baptiſm, what Mr. Tombes, Mr. Danvers, Mr. Hutchinſon, &c. on the one hand; and Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, Mr. Whiſton, &c. on the other have produced about that point. For me to re-captiulate it, is needleſs. My preſent task is only to conſider briefly what weight there is in this Review. The occaſion of which is briefly thus. Mr Baxter having in ſome of his VVritings expreſt a great deal of wrath and contempt towards the Antipaedobaptiſts, and their practice of adult baptizing: And loaded them with ſome ſtanderous Charges, which when (to his ſhame) detected; he yet perſiſted in a pertinacious defence, or rather equivocation; endeavouring with all the artifice of his talking faculty to diſintangle himſelf, and further to beſpatter and Reproach his Monitors. VVhichWhich kind of Carriage, as it beſpeaks a deſperate Diſeaſe, that will not be Cured (as Dr. Pierce tells him) with ſoft uſage; ſo it could not but juſtly provoke the indignation of thoſe, that were under the laſh of his Calumny, to expreſs ſome Checks to him, to awaken his Repentance.
Amongſt the reſt, Mr Ed. Hutchinſon ſent him a private Letter, which Mr. Baxter makes the occaſion of his Review, and yet ingenuouſly conceals the Letter, though he publiſhes an anſwer of about 46 pages to it. To ſupply which defect, it ſhall be here incerted, It was Verbatim thus.
Sir, Though the fiery temper your reprovers commonly find you in, Mr. Hutchinſons Letter to Mr. Baxter.might diſcourage them from any further adreſs of that kind to you; yet Chriſtian Charity oblidges me, to repreſent unto you, ſome of thoſe Gr…evances you gave an Original to, and which are likely to ſurvive you, unleſs you can be perſwaded to make the abuſed world ſome reparation. I can ſay (and I know that it is the mind of many) that what of Chriſt, and his Goſpel, is viſible in you, we highly prize and eſteem; and your works, as far as they tend to advance true Piety, we duely value: But you muſt give us leave to ſay alſo, that as in ſome things, you have ſurpaſt a vulgar eminence, ſo the corruptions (alwayes concomitant to frail nature) have more notoriouſly raged in you, then moſt of your ſize and denomination; and that which ſuperadds no mean aggravation, is, that you have had frequent admonitions, and reprehenſions, but with a contrary effect, then uſually is ſeen in Saints: For inſtead of reforming and allaying that unhappy ſpirit you were acted by, it has been but the more diſturbed and invenomed. And though in the intermiſſions of your paſſion, you drop many wholſome truths, and aphoriſms worth notice, (and which impeach their author roundly at other times) yet ſome unlucky fit of rotten Dictating, or fiery intemperat Diſputation ſpoils all, and tend ſtrongly to convince us that you are then left to your ſelf to rove in the wide wilderneſs of your own ſpatious imaginations: And this is motive enough to us, to be cautious what we receive from you, and examine whether it comes from the Lord, or inſtampt with your own authority, and accordingly to receive or reject it.
Hence it is, that whereas the point of Infant Baptiſm (which you tell us has its conſiderable difficulties) came under a freſh diſquiſition, ſeveral pious and judicious perſons hoped that a ſerious and full debate thereof, would fix the minds of men, and eſtabliſh that truth ſo long contraverted. But Mr. Wills appearing in that inſulting, rude and vain-glorious manner, made wiſe men doubt whether God had appointed him to be one of thoſe Prophets, that ſhould feed his people with knowledge and underſtanding. But when he became your herald, loudly proclaiming your approath to the liſts after ſo tedious an interval, our hopes were pregnant, ſince we could not but think, that the whole force of Paedo-baptiſm was muſter'd up to encounter us, in your teeming ſelf; and what a combat muſt that be! But upon the appearance of that bulky piece of Circumlocation, artifice and diſtinction, we found our expectation fruſtrated, and that you had ſhamefutlly baffled your admirers, who may juſtly exclaime in the language of the Prophet; Surely every man in his beſt eſtate is altogether vanity — And pray to be delivered from the Comination pronounced Jer. 17.5. Curſed is the man that truſteth in man, and whoſe heart departeth from the Lord. Therefore Sir you muſt give us leave to tell you that (notwithſtanding that keeneſs ſo eſſential to your humour in treating your oppoſites) we find little of argument in your attempt. And your More proofs inſtead of confuting the allegations and ſentiments of Mr. Danvers, has ſtrongly contributed to confirm and ratifie them, and inclines not a few that were before wavering, to cloſe with that Scripture Baptiſm ſo evidently demonſtrated from undenyable arguments drawn from the Example and Commiſſion of our great Lawgiver [into whoſe throne you tell us no man muſt ſtep, pretending to mend his work. Chriſtian Dire. p. 683.] the practice of the primitive Churches, and the beſt, and pureſt Antiquity. And ſince this effect of your Book was againſt your will, the accident greatly adminiſhes the kindneſs. Therefore we hope, neither you, nor any Judicious perſon … blame our perſeverence, nor their choice, unleſs you or ſome of your party, can produce ſome more nervous, and convincing demonſtrations (which we deſpair to hear of) then is hitherto exhibited in your moſt eager diſputations: I confeſs the truth is therefore thus much beholden to you, that as Contraria juxta ſe poſita magis eluceſcunt, ſo its made more tranſparent by being confronted with Cavil and ter…iverſation.
'Sir, As you are eſteem'd the Goliah of your party, ſo it was expected you would produce thoſe invincible argument; ſo often threatned, and whether it be fair for you to put them off with proofleſs Dictates, loud outeries, and frightful exclamations, with ſome new miuted diſtinctions is ſubmitted to your ſecond thoughts But Sir you muſt not expect that men of Reaſon will any longer ſwallow your … certain Dictates: They are Camels too groſs for their throats. And I muſt in…orm you, that not only your Not…rious aberrations from Scripture, Reaſon, and the practice of antiquity, but alſo your frequent waverings and unſteadineſs, have mightily weakned your authority, and …nc…eſted your credit, inſomuch that we are neceſſitated to hearken to the Counſel of Solomon (a wiſer man then your ſelf) meddle not with them that are given to Change. And if we utterly reject that opinion you have ſo ſtifly eſpouſed, I dare ſay we are Juſtified in your own Conſcience, conſidering how lamely you have vindicated your ſelf in your Diminitive Rejoynder to Mr. Danvers's ſeveral notorious charges againſt you, in plain matter of fact; and his juſt anatomizing of your Changes, ſelf Contradictions, and Repentances. Certainly had you not been groſly and egregiouſly guilty (and beyond the ſlyneſs of your diſtinction to wipe off) you would have publiſhed a Vindication to each particular, needing it far more then your corrupt Aphoriſms. And wiſe men judge, you had never in your life more need of employing your fluid Invention, and never (before) ſailing faculty of gainſaying (if you can ſay any thing) then at this time. But your pr… ting us off with a flam is the wonder of the Age, and will be ſo to the next, if your numerous progeny of Books furvive ſo long, though others think it an inſtance of no mean craft in you, to hold your peace; ſince you can ſay nothing, but what (as the fluttering of an entangled bird entangles it more) would more and more expoſe you. But Sir (in the judgment of the moſt ſolid) an Ingenuous Recantation, would be more prudent and Chriſtian like. But the Providence is Doctrinal, and proves a ſeaſonable check to mens ſinful admirations, if not adorations of humane wiſdom. And how can your Proſelytes but bluſh at their former ſubſcriptions to your Dictates? For are not your unſteady and Proteus-like Revolutions, as another little Book of Eccleſiaſtes, fully preaching forth the vanity and emptineſs of all things below God, and the folly of truſting in man, however celebrated and cry'd up. It being ſurely the great deſign of God, which he is the more eſpecially carrying on in this day, to cauſe all our Goards to wither, under the ſhadow of which we have repoſed our ſelves, and to famiſh all the Gods of the earth that his People may keep themſelves from Idols.
Sir, I would earneſtly recommend to your moſt ſerious and retired thoughts, whether you (having ſet down ſuch excellent rules for this Generation how to manage Theological Wars, and to baniſh pride and wrath from all ſuch Encounters) ſhould not alſo lead them by your Example, and practice in thoſe precepts you give them the ſpeculation of? And whether on the Contrary you have not come forth in that ſpirit you ſo pathetically declaim againſt p. 191. More Proofs viz. with a militant diſpoſition, animoſity being your valour, and how to make your adverſary contemptible, or odious, being your work? and whether you be not that man of Diſputation, Controverſy, and Strife your own p…n ſets off in your due Epithets? And truly Sir had not the ſame pen told us. That the crying and bauling Children that will not let you reſt, muſt bear the fruits of your diſquietment, p. 213, 215. ibid. we could eaſily gather what a wrathful animoſity and diſturbance you were in, from that unfatherly corr…ction you give them. For that overſ…r…rtneſs and acrimony of your ſpirit, and the fury wherewith you brandiſh the Rod, muſt needs be the reſult of ſome ill humour unſeaſonably agitated. But Sir by that …ng a…quaintance you have with your ſelf, you cannot be excuſed, unleſs you know what are the viciſſitudes of your humour; and in what ſeaſon your paroxiſm Returns. Therefore you did very unluckily to take the Petulant Children under your Caſtigation, untill the ſit were over, and your mind returned to a more calm and peaceable ten per, for correction in anger is ever eſteemed unreaſonable.
Sir, I muſt friendly admoniſh you (and which is the complaint of a great many) that you have incumbred us in a Controverſy, wherein not a few would fain have a ſatisf…ctory reſolution, but left us in the Bryars before we ſcarce underſtand your meaning. Certainly you had better never begun, unleſs you had come to ſome more commendable period. Or if you be indeed gravell'd, why do you not confeſs ſo much? You refer us to what you have writ already. Sir you cannot expect that the abuſed world can take it kindly you put them upon ſuch a task as the Poets report of Syſiphus: No ſooner at the end of your tedious wranglings, but they muſt begin again. But that you may have no cauſe to complain, we have compared (as you deſure) your Pro's and Con's, and find you ſhamefully guilty in many particulars in fa…, which your More Reaſons, (as you …ew Chriſten it) cannot excuſe you in, nor is the little Poſtſcript (joyn'd to the 5 s. Book) a ſufficient compurgator of; ſome of which I would here particularize, but that I find them truly enumerated to you already with ample and undenyable demonſtration by Mr. Danvers; of which though you ſeem to take ſo little notice, calling it a bundle of miſtakes, ſierceneſs, and confidence; Yet others cannot chuſe but look upon your ſhifting it off ſo diſdainfully, as meer ſubterfuge and evaſion. And how like a proficient in ſophiſtry you have acquitted your ſelf of that ſhameleſs ſlander of naked dipping, and how pitifully you would come off; with the unrighteouſneſs of that New charge you exhibit, of your Paper left with the Clerk at St. James's, being groſly falſified (being the particulars you pick out of the bundle, and we by which may juſtly meaſure the reſt) are alſo by the ſame hand now, with all poſſible perſpicuity and demonſtration evidenced in a 3 d. Reply. Therefore Sir, it behoves you, (and you are hereby earneſtly called to do it) to do your ſelf, and the abuſed truth, as well as your injured Neighbours ſo much iuſtice, as to repent for, and retract that ſlanderous calumny, and your ſeduction of ſo many ſouls into the belief of it; as well as that heterodoxy your late writings abound with. For alas! Sir what have you done (in your diſquietment) more then t… become the Trumpet of your own frailty? What forgeries or prevarications have you detected? Humane weakneſs, ſo much exemplify'd in your ſelf, might be plea enough for a few ſlight eſcapes of little remark to the Controverſy, and which Mr. Danvers owns. Certainly no man has leſs reaſon to magnifie Mole-hills then you.
And this Sir ſhould be a motive to prevail with you to examine your heart, whether you have not that pride there that will not let you ſ…oop? But (like the ſtubborn twig) you'l rather b…eak then bend Surely Sir it appears to me a very prepoſterous (though very ſly) expreſſion, when you tell your faithful Monitor, (who at your loud provocation, painfully delineated your ſhameful tergiverſations, and in a ſober and Chriſtian ſpirit recommended them to your moſt ſerious Review) That you would not ſo much as deſcribe or denominate Mr. Danvers's Citations of Dr. Pierce, to prove your Popery, and Crimes, nor his poſſages about the Wars, and about your Changes, Self-contradictions and Repentances, leſt you do that which ſavorech not of forgiveneſs. As if he had ſo mightily wronged you by his faithful Reprehenſions, when your own Pen can tell us in Print, 1 Diſp. Sacram. p. 487. That your pride needs ſharper reprehenſion, then friends have ever uſed about you, and therefore they are better from any body, then no-body. And though ſome call your diſcretion into queſtion for ſo provoking Mr. Danvers to enlarge ſo demonſtratively upon that juſt Charge he exhibited againſt you in groſs, yes I am very certain however he deſerves your thanks much more then your forgiveneſs. Beſides Sir, if you thus treat your admoniſhers, you are like to have but few, ſince it can ſearce reliſh with any man that (when you have rail'd, reproacht, vilified and mockt him, and had in return only a mild Chriſtian reproof and admonition, backt with fall demor-ſtration, yet) you muſt tell him, you forgive him the wrong you did him, and the kindneſs he did you; Which whether it be not a Solaeciſm in civility and Chriſtianity, as well as ſenſe, let even your moſt zealous admirers judge.
And now Sir may not your unwary proſelytes beg your pardon, that they have at any time ſhadowed themſelves under your wings, took your ipſe dixit for Scripture verities, and waited for your Oraculous pronuntiations? It being feared that God is puniſhing their Confidence in you, as he did Iſraels wiſe men of old, when the people truſted in them, Iſa. 29.14 The wiſdom of their wiſe men ſhall periſh, and the underſtanding of their prudent men ſhall be bid. And ſeeing you are ſo well acquainted with Repentances, it is juſt to admit of their acknowledgment, eſpecially if they be ready (as ſome are) to promiſe in the words of Job, that Wherein they have done fooliſhly they will do ſo no more. And though it be now a common queſtion whether you'l ever die a Martyr? And moſt reſolve it in the Negative (wondering that out of your Magazine of diſtinctions, you cannot pick out ſome to ſhiſt off the preſent perſet cution ſo loudly recorded, or indempnifie thoſe that ſuffer by proxy for you, when you took your flight) Yet we have the charity to believe (if your friends be faithful to reprehend, and you ready to receive it) a poſſibility of eſtabliſhing your wavering mind after all your transformations, and perhaps to fix you on that unerring ſoundation of the Prephets and Apoſtles, from which you have gone ſo much afiray, and that you may yet preach the truths you have deſtroyed. And we are confirmed in our hope not only from the omnipotent power of God, but alſo from the Connaturalneſs of Change to your diſpoſition. Its pitty a man of your figure, one that God (like Saul) hath made higher then divers of your Brethren, ſhould be ſuch a man of Contention, ſuch an Unus contra Populum in your generation. And ſo your pious labours in other things (uſeful to the Church) be either burred in oblivion, or greatly ſlighted, becauſe of your diſſonancy in ſome great points of faith; and heteredoxy to the pure and incorrupt diſcipline of the primitive Churches. We have been informed from your own pen, that the ſhadows of the Eternal evening are upon you, and you have been ſome time waiting at the door of eternity. And it is a trembling conſideration to ſome that love you, that you ſhould take your leave of us ſo unreconciled to your ſelf, as well as to the of truth of God, eſpecially that point of Scripture Baptiſm to which you have born ſo famous a teſtimony in ſome of your writings, and ſo timerouſly aſſerting Infant Baptiſm in others, aſſuring us it hath ſuch conſiderable difficulties, that it may juſtly make wiſe and good men to doubt; and that you your ſelf, though its moſt induſtrious undertaker, tells us of your ſelf, that you think you have proved it, but not by evidence ſo clear as every good man can perceive More Proofs; p 219. But Sir ſince you do but think ſo, and we think otherwiſe, viz. that you have not prov'd it, why may not our think be as good as your think. Therefore we deſire you, (before you take your final leave) to ſuffer a word of Exhortation. And we beſeech you in the bowels of Jeſus Chriſt, and as you will ſhortly anſwer at the great and dreadful Tribunal, that amongſt your other errata, you would repent of that abſurd and heretical poſition of a Baptiſmal Covenant of Grace running in a fleſhly line, by which you have not only deceived many thouſand ſouls, but ſo proſelyted ſome Miniſters, and furniſht them with matter to repair the breaches that have been made in Babylon to the great binderance of that Reformation ſo ſolemnly endeavoured and Covenanted for; and thereby make your ſelf the perſon you arraign viz. One that trains up militant heirs and ſucceſſors to propagate the Contention. (witneſs Mr. Parret your Index-maker; who might from your works raiſe 1500 as well as 50. queries, that ſo the multitude might ſecure him from Reſolution; For I conceive he might fiſh doubts enough out of your writings, which are known to be fruitful enough of Riddles of that grain.) To conclude Sir, if this advice may be ſucceſsful, it will be an encouragement to us to follow you (while we live) with our prayers, that (though ſome of your works may be burnt, yet) your ſoul may be ſaved in the day of the Lord — Which is the earneſt deſire of
Your Soul-Friend Edw. Hutchinſon.
In Return to this comes the Review in hand. But the Lord was pleaſed to take the worthy and pious Author of that Letter to himſelf before Mr. Baxters Review came to his hand. Which Providence (with ſome concurring circumſtances) neceſſitates me to appear in his vindication.
That choice labourer in his Lords Vineyard was long (even at the time of writing that letter) exerciſed under ſuch a Diſtemper as certainly premoniſhed him of his approaching period. And therefore was glad if he could be Inſtrumental in bringing Mr. Paxter to a Review of what he inconſiderately publiſhed: Hoping that ſo he might be convinced that his corrupt writings ſtood more in need of an humble and penitent Retraction, then ſo contumacious a plea, as he now exhibits.
But its now too apparent, that no ſuch Repentance is to be expected. But the talking faculty muſt to work once more, and palliate with a freſh torrent of words whatever extravagant fit his luxuriant pen ever fell into. If I ſhould purſue Mr. Baxter in all his turnings and windings to ſupport his tottering reputation, and inſiſt upon every particular in his Review capable of exception, my undertaking would ſwell into ſuch a volume as I have neither leaſure nor mind to compile. Therefore his diſcourſe being ſo looſe and full of incoherencies, I ſhall willingly leave his impertinent digreſſions, and addreſs my ſelf to … upon ſuch paſſages as are moſt likely to affiright the unwary Reader from a cloſure with the truth we contend for.
He tells us p. 7. Review, That upon the deepeſt ſearch he is able to make in above 20 years conſideration, he is ſatisfied we hainouſly wrong the mercy of God, and the Church, and true Believers, and their ſeed, by denying them that part in Gods Covenant and mercy, which he hath proved to be ſtated on them in Gods word — That God never had Church Laws on earth, whether in Innocency or ſince the fall, which extended not the priviledge of a Covenant and Church-ſtate to the Infants of the Church. And ſo he runs on telling us that from Adams time till now Infants were Church-members, and that Chriſt ſo found them, and ſo continued them.
Anſw. By the Marſhalling of his Comma's, and if all theſe particulars be antecedents to the pronoun them, here lyes a heavy Charge; for it ſeems (if he be believed) that we deny the mercy of God, the Church, and true believers, and their ſeed, a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy, which (Mr. B. ſays) he hath proved that God hath ſtated on them in his word. But let him conſider whether the mercy of Gods having a part in the Covenant and Mercy of God, be not non-ſenſe, 2. He would do honeſtly to produce from any Anti-paedo-baptiſt, where they ever deny'd the Church, and true believers, and their ſeed (if believers) a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy. I am confident he cannot do it; and therefore what ſhall we call this but (in his own Language, More Proofs, p. 236.) a bold-fac'd falſhood? 3. What he hath proved eſſewhere, is ſufficiently diſproved elſewhere alſo. 4 He would do well to produce thoſe Church-Laws that gave Infants the priviledge of Church-memberſhip in Innocency, or name any Infant that was in the World then. He is a notable ſearcher into Antiquity indeed, if he can bring to light ſuch an Arcanum! Beſides we could yet never find in the word of God (I believe it will put Mr. Baxter to his Trumps to produce any Scripture to evince) that any Infants were Church-members before Circumciſion, nor yet after it came to a period with the legal diſpenſation that gave being to it. If he clearly proves this Dictate, we ſhall ſubmit 5. We believe that true Believers and their ſeed (if Believers) have a part in Gods Covenant and Mercy, and to deny it them, were to impeach free grace. The thing we deny, is, that Chriſt appointed the ſeed of Believers before Converſion to the priviledge of memberſhip in his viſible Church. And how we wrong them in not forcing that upon them, which no Divine Law gives them Right unto, Mr. Baxter hath not convinced us.
He ſays be is not hardned enough to reject ſo plain a text as 1 Cor. 7.14. or to own our interpretation of it.
Anſw. That that text affords not the leaſt colour of proof for Paedo-baptiſm: and that our ſenſe of it is genuine and Orthodox, is at large evinced by Mr. Tombs 3 Review p. 7.91, 93, 94, 95. Mr. Danvers Treat. p. 160. 2 Ed. Mr. Lawrence Treat. of Baptiſm p. 260. Mr. Blackwo…ds Storm of Antichriſt p. 43, and ſeveral others, who hav… unanſwerably vindicated this text from Mr. Baxters unſound ſenſe, as to the enquiring Reader by conſulting the places referred to, may clearly appear. And if Mr. …axter reſts in his ſatisfaction, and ſtill will pertinaciouſly deſend his corrupt gloſs, 'tis not in our power to unharden him, we leave that to omnipotency.
The term foreign holyners, as Mr. Tombs notes, is only found among Eccleſiaſtical writers; yet foreign ſignifies to preſerve chaſtity, as St…phanus obſerves out of Demoſthenes foreign where a P…ieſt of B…hus ſpeaks thus, foreign, that is, I am holy and pure from t…e company of man. And learned men tell us, that foreign, &c. Chaſt, Chaſtity, to be Chaſt, come from the root foreign, holy.
Holyneſs was predicated under the Law of the temple and its Ute…ſils, the City Jeruſaſem (called foreign, Math. 4.5. and 27.53.) of places, Math. 24.15. ſtand foreign, in the holy place, and divers other things. And in this very text the ſame holyneſs or ſanctification which is predicated of the Children, is predicated alſo of the unbelieving husband and wiſe: for as it is ſaid of the Children they are holy, ſo of the unbelieving Yoke-fellow it is ſaid, they are ſanctified, that is in Engliſh, they are holy, and the words in the Greek are the very ſame: The verb foreign, being the preter tenſe paſſive of the active foreign, which comes from the Root foreign holy. And therefore there is as much holyneſs from this text to be aſcribed to the unbelieving husband or wiſe, as to the Children. And why the unbelieving husband or wiſe may not be therefore baptiſed and in Church too, as well as their Infants, this holyneſs being pleaded by Mr. Baxter to be ſederal, (though it be as clear as the Sun that the perſons Denominated holy were at that very time privative unbelievers and ſo cannot be ſaid to be ſoederally holy or ſanctyfied) is a queſtion worth the Reſolution of ſuch an Oedipus as himſelf. But in my opinion, he can never make any clean evaſion from this abſurdity. And if he can ſatisfie his Conſcience that this text is ſo plain to prove the federal holyneſs of the Children of believers, it is to me an Inſtance, that his Judgement is enſlaved by a peremptory and tenacious will. Now I apdeal to any conſiderate Reader whether there be any other holyneſs meant in this text, but what may befall an unbeliever; for the unbelieving yokeſellow is ſanctified with this holyneſs, though ſtill unbelieving. And as the word foreign, ſignifying proles, ſoholes, iſſue, or off-ſpring, extends it ſelf beyond Infants, to all Children, as Math. 15.16. Rom. 8.16. Math. 11.19. where the ſame word is uſed, ſo the word holy (as I ſaid before) being the ſame attributed to the Unbelieving husband or wife) is as applicable to a child of years, and not believing, as to an Unbelieving buſhand or wiſe. And of ſuch a holy child what great cauſe will there be to boaſt as a fit ſubject for Baptiſm? And whether ſuch a holyneſs be not ſo far from foederal, that it is purely Matrimonial and Civil, and oppoſed to that Uncleanneſs contracted by Cohabiting with ſtrange wives prohibited under the Law, is ſubmitted to the determination of the Judicious. Beſides I only add, that as the native ſcope and tendency of the text evidences the Holyneſs there to be only civil and Matrimonial, ſo we have ſome parallel places, as Mal. 2.15. 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4, 5. and Deut. 23.7. Mr. Baxter knows how foreign holy, is rendred, and holyneſs is oppoſed to fornication, 1 Sam. 214, 5, 6.
Next Mr. Baxter tells us, that man muſt not teach God how to ſpeak, but carefully enquire, what he hath ſpoken — To which I willingly aſſent. And if Mr. Baxter had been ſo ſecurely modeſt and ſober, as to content himſelf with what was ſpoken to him by the Lord, and had not given his licentious Imagination ſo unbounded a ſcope, as to peſter the Nation with his confounding, unſcriptural legions of diſtinctions, and frivolous niceties with which his Polemicks are ſo ſtufft, he had done more ſervice, then the utmoſt exploits of his talking faculty will ever amount to.
Another of his Arguments he moulds into a Quere, thus; Do you think that Paul mentioneth that as agreat and comfortable priviledge of believers which belongs to Heathens equally with them?
Anſw. VVhere Paul uſeth that phraſe (viz a priviledge of believers) upon this account, or any words equipollent, I cannot find, Mr. Baxter quotes no Scripture for it. But I humbly conceive the queſtion needs a reſolution from himſelf; For the holyneſs in the text is indeed attributed to Heathens (for ſuch was the unbelieving yokefellow) as well as the children; and therefore 'tis his part to make it out ſuch a great and comfortable priviledge as he talks of. And the term Heathen is all one with Gentiles, contradiſtinct to Jews, the word foreign ſignyfies both, Act. 4 25, 27.
Mr. Baxter goes on p. 9. and tells us, that being called to a Review, he remembers our Saviour himſelf was a Churchmember in his Infancy, even the head (though he ſaid in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 'tis diſputable, whether ever Chriſt was a Church-member properly, or no) And if an Infant was capable of being the head, King, Prieſt, and Prophet, relatively, though yet he had never ruled, ſacrificed, or taught, then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable, of being members, ſubjects, and Diſciples of Chriſt.
Anſw. 1. This vain plea is already ſufficiently anſwered by Mr. Tombs. And to me what Mr. Baxter urges, ſeems to make more againſt, then for his Paedo baptiſm — For if Chriſt whoſe title to the headſhip of Churchmembers in his Inſancy was undoubted, was not for all that baptized till at age, to ſet a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance; then certainly it is an audacious practiſe to baptize Infants, whoſe title to Churchmemberſhip and Diſcipleſhip is impoſſible to be made out with parallel clearneſs, and that too, in expreſt diſſonancy to that great and moſt illuſtrious example of our Chriſtian Baptiſm.
2ly. To argue from Chriſts headſhip, that Children ſhould be baptized, is a meer non-ſequiter. Chriſt in his Infaney was head of the Church, but not in acts exercito; ſo for ought we know Infants may be members of his Myſtical hody, yet are no actual Diſciples, till they hear the Goſpel, and profeſs the faith. And inviſible Memberſhip, being uncertain to us, can be no ground for Baptiſm. Beſides, as Mr. Tombs ſays, by this Reaſoning, an Infant in the womb may be a viſible member, becauſe then Chriſt was head of the Church, and an old man ſhould not be a member, for Chriſt was not an old man. And I may add, that Infants by this argument ſhould be Prophets, Prieſts, and Kings, in their Infancy, as well as Church-members, becauſe Chriſt was ſo. But Mr. Baxter will not be haſty to make this Concluſion.
Mr. Baxter queries, are not Infants members of other ſocieties? families? the Kings ſubjects? And why not Chriſts, as well as the Kings?
Anſw. So are Pagans Children, unbelievers Children, &c. members of Families, Kingdoms, &c. therefore they alſo by this Medium ſhould be Baptized.
2ly. There is a Characteriſtical mark that diſtinguiſhes the Church of Chriſt from all other ſocieties — It muſt conſiſt of viſible Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. Act. 2.41.47. There muſt be a right diſpenſation of the word and Sacraments, Act. 2.41. Math. 28.19. From every member of this ſociety there is required a profeſſion of his faith, and a holy converſation, Act. 8.37. 1 Pet. 3 16, 17, Rom. 10.10. Math. 3.36. Act. 19.18. Now no Parity of Reaſon drawn from the Conſtitutions or practiſe of other ſocieties or corporations, is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this ſociety (ſo diſtinct from all others) It muſt be governed by its own ſanctions, which are no where to be had, but in the word of G…d; From a cloſe conformity to which, no parallels framed by our carnall Reaſoning, muſt ſednce us.
In agreement to our definition of a viſible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him ſelf in his Book of Bpatiſm, p 87. A ſelf ſociety of perſons ſeparated from the world, to God; or foreign, called out of the world, &c. And Dr. Featly, p. 4. A particular company of men profeſſing the Chriſtian ſaith, known by two marks, the ſincere preaching of the word, and due adminiſtration of the Sacraments. And how this Definition can agree to a ſociety, of which the Major part are ignorant Babes, let them judge.
Wollebius in his Compend. Theol. Edit. Cantabr. 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a viſible Church, Caetus hominum verbo & ſacramentis ad gratiae ſtatum vocatorum, a company of men and women called by the word and ſacraments to a ſtate of grace. This book is in great repute in the Univerfities, and commonly firſt read by young ſtudents in Divinity; and if we adhere to this definition, Infants are excluded, becauſe they are not called by the word to a ſtate of grace; And though the term (Sacraments) be redundant in the Definition, yet 'tis certain Wollebius held, that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a ſtate of grace, but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word. And all Divines agree, that Eccleſia, a Church (coming of a Greek verb, that ſignifies evocare, to call from.) is Caetus hominum ex univerſo genere humano collectus ſeu evocatus per Evangelium, a company of people gathered or called from the univerſal race of mankind by the preaching of the Goſpel. And the greek is derived of the hebrew foreign a congregation. He ſays p. 11. he could theeaſilier bear with our delay of external Baptiſm, if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life.
Anſw. That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a falſe ſuggeſtion; we charitably hope (and our hope is built upon the free grace of God) that, though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their ſalvation or Damnation; foraſmuch as none can be ſaved but by Chriſt, Act. 4.12. And that all are guilty of ſin. Rom. 5.14. Infants by the preſentment of the ſatisfaction of Chriſt are ſaved, the free gift coming upon all, Rom. 5.18.
Of this ſatisfaction there is a two-fold application, 1. by Faith, in the Adult. 2. without Faith, to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God. Rom. 11.7. & 5.18. And if we queſtion how Infants dying after Baptiſm are ſaved, we muſt have recourſe to this way, it being owned by Proteſtants, that Baptiſm doth not conſer grace, nor waſh away Original ſin: And if we determine nothing poſitively in this matter, Mr. Baxter ſhould not find fault with us, he telling us in his Chriſtian Directory, p 821. That almoſt all Infants caſes are to us obſcure.
He ſays p. 12. That we lay ſuch grounds as deſtroy and exclude them by a ſentence of damnation: becauſe if we add them not to the Church, we exclude them from ſalvation.
Anſw. This language is ſpoke without book. We limit not ſalvation to the pale of the Church, as this Dictator doth. We have no rule to add any to our Churches, but ſuch whoſe profeſſions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord, being Converted. We paſs no ſuch damnable ſentence upon any that are not joyned to us; we hope the beſt; and our judgement, we paſs (when called to it) according to appearance; de non apparentibus & de non exiftentibus tadem eſt ratio, Is the language of the Schools.
2ly. This is Mr. Baxters own harſh Divinity, to deſtroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a ſentence of Damnation, when he holds that the vaſt progeny of ſuch as are (in his conceit) unbelievers. have no right to the Baptiſmal Covenant, and Church memberſhip, and conſequently (according to his Doctrine) are not of Chriſts Church or body, and therefore he is not their Saviour Let him tremble at this dreadful conceit
Hhis talk that they may viſibly belong to the Kingdom of God or ſatan, is a meer fancy. For Infants are neither in Gods nor the Devils viſible Kingdom, till they declare by their profeſſions to whom they belong viſibly. Every Infant is in the inviſible Kingdom of God or Satan, that is, elect or reprobate; yet no child till he make profeſſion doth viſibly belong to the one, or to the other. We have no Warrant to take cognizance of them as in the one or the other viſibly, but as at years they viſibly appear to cleave to either. None are viſibly Satans ſubjects, but the Children of diſobedience in whom he works, Eph. 2.2. Such are not Infants viſibly. And none are Chriſts Diciples, Subjects or Servants, but ſuch as obey him, Rom. 6.16. His Servants are ye to whom ye obey, &c. 1 John 3.10. In this the Children of God are manifeſt, and the Children of the Devil, whoſoever doth not Righteouſneſs, is not of God, neither he that loveth not his Brother.
But I ask Mr. Baxter in whoſe viſible Kingdom are Believers Infants before Baptiſm. If he ſay in the Devils; then he is guilty of the ſame execrable Doctrine he charges upon us. If he ſay they are in Chriſts viſible Kingdom before Baptiſm, viz. his viſible Church, as Mr. Baxter himſelf calls it, Review p. 12. Then how can they be ſaid to be admitted by Baptiſm? Is it not non-ſenſe to ſay, it enters them into a ſtate they were in before? To let one into a Room, when he is already there, is impoſſble. Nor will the diſtinction of compleat and incompleat member ſerve Mr. Baxters men, or members in f…eri and imperfectly, as he ſtiles unbaptized Infants, Chriſtian Directory p. 806. ſince according to his own maximes, an incompleat member has only jus adrem, non in re; ad Eccleſiam, non in Eccleſia. A title to, not a ſtanding in the Church.
But if they be compleat or perfect members after Baptiſm, why have they not the ſupper and other Ordinances of the Church adminiſtred to them? If they be ſtill incompleat, as before Baptiſm; What benefit have they by Baptiſm, being as lame Members after as before it.
Now as Mr. B. was told, he muſt hold two firſt entrances into the viſible Church, viz. Natural-birth and Baptiſm; of elſe he muſt hold that Baptiſm is not the firſt entrance: Or elſe that Believers Infants are not entred; and if not ſo not in the viſible Church before Baptiſm. If he ſays the firſt, he, contradicts all he ſays of entring the viſible Church in his Plea againſt the ſeekers, p. 343. If the ſecond, He contradicts all he ſays of Baptiſm's being the only entrance: If the third then of theſe two things he muſt neceſſarily ſay one, viz, Either all the Infants of believers that die (before their viſible entrance into the viſible Church by Baptiſm, are damned without hope — (which he dares not aver if he be a Proteſtant) or elſe that they may be in a ſtate of Salvation and yet not be viſible Members of the Church; let him avoid this if he can. And doth not this ſame Mr. Baxter tell us in his firſt Book of Baptiſm p 72. That it is not the denyal of Baptiſm directly, that leaveth Infants in the viſible Kingdom of the Devil. And if he ſtill holds this for a truth, how can he honeſtly exclaim againſt us at this rate, as if our denyal of Baptiſm to them, had damned them all.
The text Act. 2.47. That God added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved, is not (as he falſly imagines) to be underſtood of all or only ſuch, but only ſuch men, and women (not ſuch Infants) as ſhould be ſaved.
The impartial conſideration of this, makes his loud talk about our placing all Infants Unbaptized in the Kingdom of the Devil, an empty jangle. And if Mr Baxter thinks indeed that all unbaptized Infants are under that unmercyful and too cruel Character; and that the meer act of external Baptiſm tranſlates them to the Kingdom of Chriſt, in holding the firſt he dreadfully preaches Millions of poor harmleſs ſouls to Hell — And in holding the ſecond, he aſcribes more to Baptiſm, then ever God did (viz. that it procures ſalvation, and differs in nothing from the blaſphemous feats aſcribed by the Pope to his opus oparatum) Mr. Baxter gives another argument why upon his Review he ſees cauſe to plead a freſh for his Infant Baptiſm, and that is the Baptizing of houſholds.
Anſw. This argument is over and over anſwered. And is it not ſtrange that the word (houſhold) in thoſe few places mentioned muſt include Infants, when Baptiſm is ſpoken of: but when the paſſover is ſpoken of, then Infants are excluded, becauſe elſe we ſhall argue from thence to their eating the Supper, as they from Circumciſion to their Baptiſm? Do not theſe men force that ſignification upon words that beſt ſerve their turn?
2ly. There is no probability that Lydia had a husband, or Children, or ſhe may be an ancient widdow, and her children (if ſhe had any) grown up. In Act. 16.40. we read, that thoſe in her houſe were capable of conſolation. 2. The Jaylors family believed. Act. 16.34. (3.) The houſhold of Stephanus addicted themſelves to the Miniſtry of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16.15. (4.) Criſpus believed in God with all his houſe, — Therefore there were no Infants, Act. 18.8. We read of no more Baptized houſholds in Scripture. Narciſſus and Ariſtobulus houſholds are urged by ſome; but there is no mention of houſhold in the Greek; but it may be Friends or Kindred, Rom. 16.10, 11. foreign.
Reader, I ſhould weary thee and my ſelf, if I ſhould run over the long-winded Repetitions of Mr. Baxter in this Review. What I ſaid already if well weighed, Anſwers his tedious talk in the ſucceeding pages. And I think my time more worth then to waſt it in diſproving naked dictates. What becomes of Heathens dying Infants, is known only to God, and it is no better then ſinful curioſity to be wrangling, and too confidently obtruding our conceptions about ſuch unrevealed matters. 'Tis certainly the ſafeſt way to be ſober, and advance no further in ſuch queſts, then the Scripture guides. We have enough revealed to employ our ſtudies upon, and make us wiſe to ſalvation, 2 Tim. 3.15.
To enervate our Plea for non-Baptiſing Infants, viz. the want of Scripture preſident or grecept, he propound a queſtion to us, thus. There is no Scripture-preſident for Baptizing Kings (he might add Coblers too) muſt none therefore be Baptized?
Anſw. This is a gravelling quere he thinks. But we find Scripture preſident for Baptizing men and women. And in my Judgement Kings and Queens, and Coblers alſo, are men and women.
He ſays p. 17. The Scripture tells us not all that was done, but all that muſt be done. VVe grant it — And if the Scripture tells us all that muſt be done, and we find not a ſyllable there of Infant Baptiſm; is it not very injurious to blame us for renouncing ſuch a practice as we find no warrant for? This very man tells us, pl. Script. p. 301. That he finds it a hard Controverſy to prove Infant Baptiſm, it is ſo dark in the Scripture — And More Proofs p. 219. That it hath conſiderable difficulties, and that his proofs are not ſo clear as every good man can perceive — And yet he has publiſhed a Book Intituled, plain Scripture-proof for Infant Baptiſm — ſtrange conſidence, and Contradiction!
But now he produces (as he tells us,) a full command for Infant Baptiſm, Math. 28.19. becauſe Nations muſt be Baptized.
Anſw. VVhat ſhall we ſay to men whoſe Judgements are fore ſtalled by a darling error? I need not add much to diſprove this, but referr the Reader to our Books where this text is vindicated from Mr. Baxters ſenſeleſs gloſs. Nations are to be diſcipled, and ſo Baptized, Certainly the Pronown [then] governed by the participle [Baptizing] can poſſibly relate to no other Subſtantive, then the Perſons commanded before to be taught. For as Dr. Holmes truly tells us p. 7. 'tis not the Nations in groſs. For then, all muſt be Baptized, if the word Nation univerſally taken doth there denote the Subjects of Baptiſm. But 'tis the Nations with reſtriction, that is, ſuch as are diſcipled by teaching, and no more, that are commanded to be baptized. And if this be not the ſenſe, they muſt baptize them in the lump, Heathens, Unbelievers, Profeſſors Infants, and all, and that whether they would be baptized or nor. Let Mr Baxter conſider what a full command he hath met with for his practice.
Mr. Baxters further talk about Infants being Diſciples, and his parity of Reaſon from their being the Kings Subjects; Ergo, why not Chriſts, I look upon as frivolous. His frequent urgeing the parents Faith to be the ground of their Baptiſm, and that the Parents will go for theirs in conſenting, ſhall be anſwered in the words of a learned Doctor.
If they have imputative faith, ſo let the Sacrament be too; that is, if they have the Parents faith, or the Churches, then ſo let Baptiſm be imputed to them by derivation from them, and as in their mothers womb, and while they hang on their mother breaſts, they live upon their mothers nouriſhments; ſo they may upon the Baptiſm of their parents or their mother the Church; For ſince faith is neceſſary to the ſuſception of Baptiſm (and they themſelves confeſs it by ſtriving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up) ſuch as the Faith, ſuch muſt be the Sacrament; for there is no proportion betwen an actual Sacrament, and an Imputative faith; this being an immediate and neceſſary order to that. And whatſoever can be ſaid to take of the neceſſity of actual faith, all that and much more may be ſaid to excuſe from the actual ſuſception of Baptiſm, &c. And a little further he adds — That if baptiſm be neceſſary to the ſalvation of Infants (as the Fathers of old, and the Church of Rome and England ſince) [yea and Mr. Baxter too] upon whom is the impoſition laid? to whom is the Command given? to the Parents, or the Children? Not to the Parents; for then God hath put the ſalvation of innocent babes into the power of others; and Infants may be damned for their parents careleſneſs or malice. It follows that it is not neceſſary at all to be done unto them, to whom it cannot be preſcribed as a Law, and in whoſe behalf it cannot be reaſonably intruſted to others, with the appendant neceſſity: And if it be not neceſſary, it is certain it is not reaſonable, and moſt certain it is no where in terms preſcribed. And therefore it is preſumed that Baptiſm ought to be underſtood and adminiſtred according as other precepts are, with reference to the capacity of the ſubject, and the reaſonableneſs of the thing.
And again — If any man runs for ſuccour to that exploded Cresphugeton, that Infants have faith, or any other inſpired habit of I know not what, and how; we deſire no more advantage in the world, then that they are conſtrained to anſwer, without Revelation, againſt Reaſon, common ſenſe, and all the experience in the world. Haec ille.
Reader, I take Mr. Baxters Review hitherto to be ſhewed vain, and his ground for Paedo-baptiſm to be very weak and frivolous. He comes next p. 20 to add and enlarge upon 4 particulars, and thoſe ſubdivided into many others, which comprehend the reſt of the Review.
1. The benefits of Infant Baptiſm — And I think moſt of the benefits he enumerates he learnt of the Pope.
2. The evils that follow not baptizing them. Theſe are meer whimſies of his own making, not worth a ſerious Readers patience. I willingly paſs them, there is nothing argumentative in them, therefore no need of a Reply.
3. The ſins we would draw men to by rejecting it — And here he is very fruitful, he finds them to be no leſs then 15. And all without Proof; therefore I paſs them with a naked Negation, which is ever as valid, as a naked aſſertion.
By way of digreſſion, before he comes to the fourth particular, Mr. Baxter quarrels with Mr. Hutchinſon for deſiring him to repent of his abſurd poſition of a Baptiſmal Covenant of grace running in a fleſhly line, and ſeems to deny that ever he uſed ſuch a phraſe, but if he remembers himſelf, he uſes the words [baptiſmal Covenant] frequently, as More Proofs, p. 198. 224. 238. even in this Review p. 3. & 38. And ſeveral other places. And doth he not call that Covenant, a Covenant of grace through all his writings? If that be not his meaning, why doth he not tell us what other Covenant he means? And doth he not as confidently affirm, that that Baptiſmal Covenant of grace is convey'd to the Children by their believing parents? And is not that a running in a fleſhly line, and in his conceit hereditary? if ſo, what reaſon has he to exclaim, as if that were charged upon him, which he holds not? Doth he not call our Diſpute againſt this conceit, a Hectoring men out of their Inheritances, Review p. 34? which fully explains what Covenant he means: it ſeems he dares not own his opinion, when ſtated in the proper terms, but would mince it into a more diſguiſed and ſpecious Phraſe, to impoſe with the more artifice upon his credulous can … But let them take warning (if they be wiſe) not to take ſuch rotten precepts of men, for Goſpel, though ſet off in plauſible language by ſuch a man of tongue.
The reſt of his talk better deſerves thoſe titles of ſupercilious, and inſulting, and Rhetorical invective canting, &c. which he beſtows upon his admoniſher, then the Letter ſent him.
4. At laſt he comes to the 4 particular, containing 13. other particulars, which he ſays he might be ſeduced into, if he had owned Anabaptiſm. Anſw. But that (as Mr. Eyres ſaid long ago) it is too well known that Mr. Baxters tongue is no ſlander, I would particularly demonſtrate, either thoſe evils he inſinuates us to be guilty of, and led unto by our principle, are none of ours; and that through grace we are kept from ſuch opinions or practiſes; (as our publick Confeſſions and Converſations are ample teſtimonies of) and which none but a man of Calumny would charge us with. But in the conſciences of all ſober diſſenters we queſtion not but we ſhall be freed from an imputation uttered in heat, and that looks with ſuch an aſpect as if meer malice had given it birth.
And as theſe particulars are the meer product of that peeviſhneſs and anger he is commonly in, when he corrects theſe bauling and Crying Children, as he calls us, More Proofs p. 2. 3. and ſo ſcarce worth our notice; ſo I obſerve he bleſſes God for delivering him from ſome things, which yet he was foully guilty of; as the 3. particular, viz. A proud overvaluing of his own opinion, &c. And the 4. viz. having a hand in all the turnings and overturnings; ſettings up, and pulling down; praying, and unpraying, owning and diſowning; bloody days; and thanksgiving for them, &c. And that in a more notorious degree then any of the perſons he accuſes, as is already to his ſhame made out from his own pen. So that I could retort theſe particulars almoſt generally upon him; for he deſerves much of that Character he vainly boaſts he is free from, but ſuch applications we find by experience do him little good, and therefore at preſent I ſpare him.
And whether he be not fallen point-blank into his 9. particular, viz. That when once prepoſſeſſion, prejudice and Intereſt of Reputation had ingaged him in ſo bad a cauſe (as Infant Sprinkling) he ſtudied all that he could rak… together to maintain it, and to have ſtretched all his wits to have oppoſed all that is brought againſt it, &c. let his Conſcience determine.
I deſire the Reader to note, that it any paſſages of his are paſt without Animadverſion, they are either ſuch things as are largely confuted already, or elſe apparently frivolous; and ſo not worth mine nor the Readers time.