Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Wherein we have an account given of ſome pretended Miſchiefs, Abſurdities, and Contradictions chargeable upon the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm.
WE were once reſolved to have pretermitted this Chapter, being a Recapitulation of the Author's former Arguments againſt us, and containing nothing that is material and pertinent to the Queſtion, that hath not been already either Actually or Virtually reſolved: but had I perſiſted in that reſolution, and ſaid nothing, it would have been imputed by ſome to be, by reaſon of ſome difficulties that I found therein, which made me unwilling to meddle with it. I have, to prevent all ſuch imaginations, encountered it with aſſurance, that the ingenious Reader will approve my Husbanding time better, than to make a large repetition of what hath been already ſaid; when in truth it is ſufficient only to point to ſuch places in my Book, where the ſame things are preſſed as we find here, and to which anſwer hath been given. Nevertheleſs I ſhall ſuperadd a few things. He begins with Miſchiefs.
1. The firſt Miſchief is, by altering Chriſt's Order in the Commiſſion, Matt. 28.19. wherein Teaching, Repentance & Faith; are required alwayes to precede Baptiſm, which this makes to follow after.
Reply.
Notwithſtanding what is ſaid to this in the firſt Chapter of my Book, I add, That I deny the Propoſition to be Univerſally true, that Teaching, Faith, Repentance, ought alwayes to precede Baptiſm. For Perſons to be Baptized are, either;
1. Original, which have no precedent title. To ſuch, Teaching, Repentance, Faith, muſt precede their Baptiſm; for ſuch having not precedent Evidences of being in Covenant, muſt put forth ſome acts of Faith & Repentance of their own, that ſo they may have evidence of right.
2. Secondary, and derived, viz. Infants of former Believers, and 'tis not requiſite, that Teaching, Faith, Repentance, ſhould precede their Baptiſm. This diſtinction of Primary, Original, or Secondary and Derived Perſons in the Title to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, would anſwer moſt of the Author's Arguments for him, if he would pleaſe to conſider it. We call the Believing Parents Original, and their Infants Secondary and Derived Perſons for diſtinction ſake: Not as if the Father were the Original of his Son's right to the Covenant or Seal; No, God's meer Grace in Chriſt, who at the firſt Inſtitution of the Covenant was pleaſed to take in both the Believer and his Seed, is the Original of both their Rights; The Seed Deriving it immediatly from the Tenour of the Covenant, as well as the Father: But becauſe the Relation of that Infant to that Believer as his Seed, is a determining Mean, bringing him within the Covenant, from which his Right proceedeth. If you ſay, How prove you this diſtinction of Firſt and Original Perſons, and Secondary and Derived, out of the Word? I prove it, 1 From the Tenour of the Covenant it ſelf: I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; where there is this diſtinction of perſons in the Covenant, 1 To thee, Abraham, actually believing. 2. To thy Seed after thee, brought within the Covenant, by being thy Seed, and by thy actual Believing, though they for the preſent are not actual Believers; and ſo the Seal was to be put on them in that Right even before their actual Believing. 2. So is there ground for it in applying and holding out the Covenant in the ſame Tenour under the Goſpel, as is before ſhewn from Act. 2.39. There are the ſame two ſtates of perſons. 1. You, and others, as many as ſhall be actually called. 2. The Seed of them and others, ſo actually called. 3. In the conſtant Practice according to this warrant, in the taking in of the Proſelytes: He who came in, and took hold of the Covenant, was Circumciſed on his actual taking hold of it, but then the Original-Perſons actually profeſſing, they ſtayed not for ſuch actual profeſſion in the Seed of ſuch a one, but gave them the Seal, as perſons in Covenant, even before actual Profeſſion. I have been the larger, becauſe this is the Key which muſt open the way to be ſatisfied in the lawfulneſs of Infant-Baptiſm; and to repel all Arguments againſt it.
2. Thoſe places in the Commiſſion, Go teach all Nations, Baptizing &c. to which he ſhould have added the other, Mark 16.16. He that believeth, and is Baptized, ſhall be ſaved, muſt be taken in the Latitude of Original Perſons, not of Derived, for of ſuch alone doth Chriſt ſpeak there, giving Commiſſion of the planting and firſt-gathering of Churches, for that the Whoſoever in Mark muſt not be taken in a full Latitude of neceſſity, is plain from the other clauſe to which it is convertibly prefixed, viz. Shall be ſaved: for if the Ʋniverſality of the ſpeech reach Infants to exclude them abſolutely from Baptiſm; it muſt alſo reach them in the ſame manner to exclude as full from being Saved, as is before noted in the firſt Chapter of this Book.
2. By changing the Subjects of Chriſt's appointment, viz. Men and Women of knowledg and underſtanding, capable to Evidence Faith and Repentance, for ignorant unconverted Babes that know neither good nor evil.
This was anſwered juſt now, in what was ſaid to the altering Chriſt's Order in the Commiſſion: and there is more in the firſt Chapter of my Book, Part 1.
3. By fruſtrating the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance.
See what a full anſwer we have given to this, and how ſhort he comes of making good this charge, Chap. 4. Part 1.
4. By inverting the order and manner from Dipping to Sprinkling.
Which is anſwered Chapt. 2. Part 2.
5. By introducing much Error and falſe Doctrine, as
1. That it was to take away Original Sin.
Anſwer.
Although ſome of the Fathers have ſpoken too highly of Baptiſm, and our Authors own Theophilact, whom he quotes Chap. 7. pag 82. for one of his eminent witneſſes for Believers Baptiſm, ſpeaks very Hyperbolically of it, as that all our Sins are drowned in Baptiſm, as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the Red Sea; that Infidels dye in their Sins, becauſe unbaptized, for which extravagancies and others, (as that Chriſt by Baptiſm had open'd Heavens door, which was ſhut againſt us by Adam's Sin) he is cenſured by the Magdeburgenſes, Cent. 10. p. 190. And likewiſe Bellarmine, and the Popiſh School-men, ſpeak magnificently of it: as Baptiſmo reipſa tolli peccata, ita ut non ſolum non imputetur, ſed nec ſit quod imputari poſſet ad culpam: which he intends not only of Original Sin in Infants, but Original and Actual in grown Perſons; but notwithſtanding this error, Infant-Baptiſm, as to its warrantableneſs, receives no prejudice, no more than the Baptiſm of grown perſons.
2. It is alſo acknowledged that very many Epiſcopal Divines, and others, who are Proteſtants, hold that Original Sin is done away by Baptiſm, but in a way quite different from the Papiſts; for they aſſert Original Sin to be removed by Baptiſm ex opere operato, from the Work done; and that it is ſo done away as that there is an utter aboliſhment of it, ſo as not to render the Baptized perſon obnoxious to God's Wrath and Condemnation: for not only the reatus peccati Originalis, the guilt of Original Sin, but in Baptiſmate tollitur id quod veram & propriam rationem peccati habet: the very eſſence or being of Sin is taken away [it is with them annihilated],Concil. Trident. Seſs. 5. for ſo ſpeaks the Council of Trent, with a ſi quis neget Anathema ſit; if any one denies it, let him be Anathematized. On the contrary, Proteſtants aſcribe the doing away only of the guilt of Sin by the Blood of Chriſt, & applyed by the Spirit in that Ordinance; but they aſſert the inherence of Original Sin in Infants after Baptiſm, which ſhews it ſelf early in the fruits thereof, when they are capable of acting Electively. And all that I apprehend they ſay upon the point, is, that there is a poſſibility and probability, as ſome ſay; others go higher, to a certainty, that in elect Infants, thoſe that dye in Infancy, the Seaſon of God's doing that, which all acknowledg to be done at one time or other before death, viz. the doing away the guilt of Original Sin, is at the time of Baptiſm; and that Text Act 22.17. Ariſe and be Baptized, and waſh away thy Sins, hath a favorable aſpect upon Gods deſigning and bleſſing that Ordinance, for the ſealing of pardon in reference to grown Perſons.
2. To work Grace and Regeneration, This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm. Exer. pag. 30.and to effect Salvation by the work done.
Although the Author knows all Proteſtants diſclaim this, and condemn it for a damnable Error, yet he ſeems indirectly at leaſt to charge it upon the Church of England, which for my part I look upon it as very unjuſtly done. What means elſe thoſe reflections of his pag. 148. upon that paſſage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechiſm, viz. That Children being Baptized, have all things neceſſary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly ſaved; and then after Baptiſm the Prieſt muſt ſay, We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleaſed thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit; juſt comporting (ſaith he) length and breadth with Pope Innocent's firſt Canons.
Anſwer.
'Tis fit the Church of England ſhould be believed in what ſence ſhe intends thoſe words,Baptiſm by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration, or a new-Birth, ſo 'tis by the Scripture, Tit. 3.5. foreign Waſhing of the new-Birth or Regeneration. and we may learn it in her Articles, which ſpeaks her at an infinit diſtance from the abſurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit, or ex opere operato: and 'tis not for others to put what interpretation they think meet, eſpecially, ſuch as are Obnoxious to her Laſh. Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England (an Independant as they call them) ſpeaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter, and at a place where he needed not her favour; and as I take it at a time, when ſhe could not help him: which are circumſtances that will not ſuffer us to ſuſpect him of flattering or fawning. We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptiſm. Notwithſtanding (ſaith he) thoſe expreſſions in the Service-Book, yet the Church of England doth profeſſedly teach the contrary Doctrine, not only in their Pulpits, but in Books allowed by publique Authority: She doth aſſert that the Scraments do not beget Faith, nor Regeneration ex opere operato; but they are ſigns and ſeals thereof: Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto, but as in judgment they do believe that God by Covenant promiſeth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed, Ezek. 26.25 Iſ. 48.3. and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promiſe by Baptiſm.
3. That it was an Apoſtolical Tradition.
And for that we have the Teſtimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before,Mr. Tombes his 4th Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm; Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apoſtles days; and in which Chapter we have alſo ſhewn how Tradition is, both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches, taken in a ſafe ſence different from that corrupt one of the Papiſts, and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture.
4. That Children have Faith, and are the Diſciples of Chriſt.
Anſwer.
No Paedobaptiſts ever held Children had perſonally actual Faith, for their condition is inſufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts, but as for the habit and grace of Faith, the inherent infuſed power of believing, it is more than any Antipaedobaptiſt in the World can prove they have not; for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it, (moſt of them confeſs it,Anabaptiſtae ut Paedobaptiſmum prorſus tollerent, peccatum negârunt Originale, ut non ſub eſſet cauſa cur Infantes Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though ſome of them deny Original Sin) and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one, for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual: But whether Infants Baptized have any ſuch thing as a diſtinct habit of Faith or no, this queſtion of their Baptiſm depends not upon it: It is a hidden thing. The ground on which we give them Baptiſm muſt be viſible; and ſo it is, viz. their being the Seed of Believers, and hereby viſibly entitled to the Covenant, and ſo to the Seal of it. We look not to what they have, but to whom they pertain, viz. to God, as being the Seed of his Servants.
That they are Diſciples is ſufficiently proved, Chap. 1. Part. 1.
5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy.]
That's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2.
6. By defiling and polluting the Church, viz.
1. By bringing falſe matter therein, who are no Saints by calling, being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges.]
Notwithſtanding their inability to perform Duty, yet they are capable of enjoying Priviledges as we have abundantly made good, Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Goſpel, as formerly under the Law, as is there made out.
2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaneſs.]
Cujus contrarium eſt veriſſimum. The contrary is moſt true: for,
1. Infant-Baptiſm layes a ſingular good foundation for knowledg; for in that Children are taken into Chriſts School, they are in a near capacity to be taught, and thoſe who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg, and to ſee them brought up foreign, in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord.
And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England, But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented, the Children are not lookt after as they ſhould be, nor do Miniſters mind them of their duty.gives charge— You muſt remember that it is your part and duty to ſee that this Infant be taught ſo ſoon as he ſhall be able to learn—And that he may know theſe things the better, ye ſhall call upon him to hear Sermons, and chiefly you ſhall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the Engliſh Tongue, and all other things that a Chriſtian man ought to know and believe to his Souls health, &c.
Secondly, it laies a good foundation for Holineſs: They are minded by their Baptiſm to caſt of the Devil's ſervice, as ſoon as they are able to reflect, that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God, whoſe Livery they have worn. And ſome have repelled great temptations, by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptiſm in their Infancy; hence ſaith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical uſe of Infant-Baptiſm, pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptiſm; for how can it be otherwiſe than ſuch which endeavours to extirpate ſo conſiderable a means for the advance of Converſion and Sanctification, as he ſhews Infant-Baptiſm to be? Hence, ſaith he, ariſe grievous prejudices againſt thoſe Miniſters, Societies, and Ordinances, in which God hath been wont to ſcatter ſaving Grace in this Nation, which are if not raiſed, yet fomented by Anabaptiſm. And their Principle he conceives, hath been very prejudicial to the Converſion of youngones (amongſt whom uſually the ſtream of converting Grace runs) becauſe it ſpeaks an actual diſingagement from all relation to God, his Covenant, Church, and Ordinances, till of their own choice they take them up at years of diſcretion: Now whilſt perſons live looſe from ſuch engagements, as in their proper nature and tendency further Converſion, no wonder if the work goes ſlowly on among them.
3. By confounding the World and the Church together, which Chriſt hath ſeparated.]
Not ſo, For Baptiſm is God's Sheep-mark (as Mr. Ford calls it) to diſtinguiſh thoſe that are of his Fold from ſuch as graze in the wild Common of the World; what confounding is there in this Principle? — That not only they who do actually profeſs Faith in, and Obedience to Chriſt, but alſo the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptized, and they only.
7. By introducing and eſtabliſhing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichriſt.]This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1.
Many of which, and ſome of the worſt attend the Baptiſm of grown Perſons in the Church of Rome, as Chriſm, Exorciſm, &c.
And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, Mr. Geree tells him, it was rather a Motive than a Reaſon againſt it to move peoples affections againſt the inconveniences following it, rather than to convince the unlawfulneſs of it — But that which is lawful in it ſelf, cannot reflect any ſcrûple of unlawfulneſs upon that which occaſions it. And if any corruption occaſioned accidentally and ſeparable from an act of Worſhip, could caſhier it; then farewel Baptiſm it ſelf, Prayer, Lords Supper, and all that is Sacred: for what a world of ſuperſtitious devices have the wanton and ſuperſtitious Heads and Hearts of Men, taken occaſion from them all, to deviſe and practiſe, it is ſo clear there needs no inſtances to be given.
8. By being (ſaith he) ſuch a Make-mate, ſuch a Bone of Contention, and that among themſelves too that own it, as well as with thoſe that oppoſe it.
The Lord open the eyes of thoſe who are ſo zealous againſt Infant-Baptiſm that they may ſee their own nakedneſs, & conſider the beam that is in their own eyes; certainly whilſt they judg our principle, condemnation is written in their own foreheads. Firſt, how furiouſly do they contend among themſelves? What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul, both of them for Baptizing Believers? the former (having publiſhed a little Book whoſe Title is, Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptiſm no Bar to Communion, or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful; of which I have before hinted, complains in the Epiſtle to the Reader, That the Brethren of the Baptized way would not ſuffer them to be quiet in their Chriſtian Communion, but did aſſault them for more than 16 years, and (as they had opportunity) ſought to break them in pieces, meerly becauſe they were not in their way all Baptized. Firſt, He profeſſeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptiſm (though they feigned it); but all that he aſſerted was, That the Church of Chriſt hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Chriſtian, that is diſcovered to be a viſible Saint, and walketh according to his light with God. And for this Orthodox poſition, they charge him to be a Machivelian, a Man Deviliſh, Proud, Inſolent, Preſumptuous; words, ſaith the poor Man, fitter to be ſpoken to the Devil than a Brother. He puts out his Confeſſion of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections, and tells him, he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way, and Blaſphemes them that dwell in heaven, p. 3. That he belyes all Expoſitors, p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to bluſh at his inſolency, p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous, topful of ignorance or prejudice, and deſerve no other anſwer than contempt, p. 43. and then falls to prayer, the Lord judg between us and this accuſer, to whom we ſhall ſay no more but the Lord rebuke thee. And what ſayes Bunyan to this, in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptiſm? Firſt, that in his ſimple Opinion, their rigid, and Church-dividing, diſquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church, pag. 1. and I wiſh there were not too much truth in what he ſaith: he accuſeth them for endeavouring and perſwading him to break Communion with his Brethren, tampering with others that their Seeds of diviſion might take, and prevailed ſo far as to rent and diſmember ſome from them, and that the judgment of God ſo followed their deſign, that the preſons which then they prevail'd upon became afterward a ſtink and reproach to Religion. I find our Author falling upon this good Man, (two to one is odds) and laſhing him to the purpoſe, for his laſt Book, you have it at the end of his Treatiſe of Baptiſm: He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with abſurdities, contradictions, traducing the Wiſdom of Chriſt, hainous Errors and fundamental miſtakes; whoſe Principles, ſaith he, are preſumptuous, ſavouring of ignorance and folly, contradicting the Wiſdom & Authority of Chriſt, ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and ſelfcondemned: and at laſt, that he is one that pleaſeth not God, and is contrary to all Men, which laſt muſt be underſtood with a limitation, (of all Men like himſelf). But why ſhould Profeſſors of Religion throw ſo much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that diſſent from them? Tantaene animis caeleſtibus irae? Sure ſuch language becomes not Chriſtians: Let it be ſuppoſed that they have truth on their ſide; this is no good way to propagate it, it needs not tali auxilio, nec defenſoribus iſtis. The Wiſdom which is from above is firſt pure, then peaceable. The Servant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive, but muſt be gentle towards all — In meekneſs inſtructing thoſe that oppoſe, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25.But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule, if they be ſet upon a point (though controvertible) they have ſuch a fire of zeal within, that it breaks out into a flame that conſumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppoſe it. Your Opinioniſts if they have Faith, they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themſelves; but are infinitely deſirous to propagate it, and are the ſevereſt Cenſurers in the World.
Two other Antipaedobaptiſts, viz. Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lamb (being come off from that hidebound Spirit of having Communion with none but thoſe of our own Judgment) are alſo laſht in the Authors Poſtſcript. They have (ſaith he) both declined the Truth; and their Books, which were pen'd with great Judgment, ſtrength of Argument, and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion ſhall riſe up in Judgment againſt them (without Repentance) for declining the Truth; ſo confident is the Author that he ſpeaks by way of Propheſy, that what they have writ ſhall not only live as a Witneſs for God, and his reproached Truths, but as a living Teſtimony againſt themſelves, in their unreaſonable and unrighteous departure from the ſame (except they repent) to all generations: if theſe Man cannot appeal to Heaven touching their own integrity, ſo thundring a Sentence muſt needs trouble their Conſciences. Moreover, if I miſtake not they are divided amongſt themſelves about the Adminiſtrator of Baptiſm (as unwholſome word becauſe unſcriptural, Paſtors, Teachers, Miniſters we read, of but no Adminiſtrators) ſome holding none but men in Office may give Baptiſm, others that a private Man may do it, eſpecially in caſe of neceſſity; and Mr. Tombes favours this Opinion, Praecurſor pag. 72. and he gives his reaſon for it, viz. becauſe all, or moſt of the Miniſters ordained in England are againſt Baptizing of Perſons of years Sprinkled in Infancy: and there lying upon them that ſee Infant-Baptiſm a corruption, a neceſſity to be Baptized upon Profeſſion of Faith; there is a neceſſity that they be Baptized by Perſons not Ordained.
I like a man that will ſpeak plainly his mind: & I will be as plain in opening mine; and I think I have hit upon the truth, namely that the Oppoſers of Infant-Baptiſm muſt hold that unbaptized Perſons ☞ may Baptize, and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized perſons; or elſe they muſt diſown their new Baptiſm, and all their Ordinances, and turn Seekers: For the firſt of their Adminiſtrators muſt either Baptize himſelf, or elſe was Baptized by ſome Perſon Baptized in Infancy, that is with them, by an unhaptized Perſon. Laſtly, I want not Inſtances to ſhew how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted, and muſt prepare my ſelf for the hard Cenſures of my Antagoniſt and his Party; and had it not been for the honour of truth, and love that I bear unto it, they ſhould have gone on till Dooms-day (though I believe God will ſhortly break the neck of their ridged Principle) before I would have diſturb'd their quiet, and expoſed my ſelf to their ill-will. It is ſufficiently obſerved and deplored by ſober Chriſtians that are unaddicted to faction, how turbulent this fort of men have alwayes been, as in forreign parts, ſo in our own Country, in the propagation of their Opinion, and how diſtaſtful it is to them to have any thing ſaid againſt their way. There is a ſad paſſage quoted by the Author himſelf, pag. 308. of his Treatiſe, out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene, viz. The Troops of Anabaptiſts that dwell in Frieſtand, although they trouble not the Commonwealth, they ſuffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts; and what a ſtir they kept in Gemany with thoſe Godly Miniſters Luther, Zwinglius, Muſculus, conteſting with them, diſturbing their Churches, you ſhall hear ſhortly in our Animadverſions upon the Authors hiſtorical part at the latter end of this diſcourſe.
9. By being an occaſion (ſaith he) to ſtir up much bitter hatred, wrath, ſtrife, emnity, perſecution againſt thoſe that oppoſe it. How have they been followed with Stripes, Impriſonments, Confiſcation, yea Death it ſelf.]
Something of this may be layd at their own door, as before hath been manifeſted in the perſecution of the Tongue, to which they are ſo much addicted; but as for thoſe Martyrs he ſpeaks of, that have ſuffered ſtripes, impriſonment, death, we find very few of them in Fox his Martyrologie, and none of them puniſhed purely for oppoſing Infant-Baptiſm, but the Antichriſtian Tenets of Rome, Tranſubſtantiation, the Maſs, &c. for which other Proteſtants ſuffered, and ſome of them, were put to death for aſſerting dangerous errors, and for ſedition here in England, and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas, as ſhall appear in the Hiſtorical Narrative.
10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichriſtian Intereſt as made good by the Preface.
An unworthy calumny, and ſpoken without the leaſt ground of reaſon; only becauſe Mr. Baxter hath declared his ſingle Judgment in ſome things in reference to Baptiſm, in ſome of which he ſpeaks not poſitively and dogmatically, but as I remember he qualifies it with ſuch expreſſions, as I think ſo, or ſuppoſe ſo; and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it, render Infant-Baptiſm it ſelf, a point that confirms the whole Antichriſtian Intereſt, that is not derived thence, and hath no reference to, or favour for it, and when many Paedobaptiſts differ from Mr. Baxter, and are unſatisfied at thoſe paſſages in his Chriſtian Directory?
Abſurdities.
11. By uſhering in great Abſurdities, viz.
1. That Perſons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling.
This is no Paradox to thoſe who have heard of John Baptiſts being Sanctified in the Womb. I could here turn the Author to ſeveral places in Mr. Tombes his Works, where he dares not deny but Infan̄ts may have the ſeed of Grace, but I have ſpoken to this before: only take notice of that is his Praecurſor pag. 13. It is not doubted, but Infants belong to the inviſible Kingdom of the Elect, but how they attain Salvation is not ſo certain: if by a Seed of Faith and Holineſs without actual exerciſe, the thing is more eaſie to conceive &c. And again he ſaith, There are Believers of two ſorts, either in the Seed or Fruit, either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation, in one of which wayes Infants are, or may be Believers.
2. That Perſons may be viſible Church-members before Converſion.]
And is that ſuch a wonder? We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law, why not under the Goſpel? when were they excluded?
3. That Perſons may Repent, Believe, and be Saved by the Faith of another.]
We own no ſuch thing.
4. That Types and Shadows profit after the Antitype and ſubſtance is come, introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge.]
The weakneſs of this is diſcovered before, proving the Covenant made with Abraham ſtill to continue to Believers, and their natural Seed, as you may ſee towards the end of the 3d Chapter, Part. 2.
5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptiſm, new Church-Covenants are invented.] &c.
This is directed only againſt one ſort of Paedobaptiſts called Independents, whom he ſaith in point of order, do err more than Prelate or Presbyter, owning Infant-Baptiſm and yet denying them the right of Church-memberſhip: this is anſwered Chap. 6. Part 1. by ſhewing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members, that is, of the Univerſal Viſible Church before Baptiſm, and the reaſons for it; as alſo why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up, till they make a ſerious Profeſſion of that Faith into which they were Baptized, and claim the priviledg of Communion.
Contradictions.
12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice.]
1. By aſſerting, that Baptiſm is a Symbol of preſent Regeneration wrought, and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes, ſo uncapable of Regeneration.]
This is a crambe bis cocta, anſwered again and again, but eſpecially in Chap. 4. Part 1. about the ends of Baptiſm, of which this is named for the third.
2. That it truly figures and repreſents a Death, Burial, & Reſurrection, and yet do nothing but ſprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face.]
This is another repetition, being brought by the Author for the 4th End of Baptiſm, and anſwered Chap. 4. Part 1. likewiſe again, Chap. 4. Part 2.
3. That Faith and Repentance are required in Perſons to be Baptized, and that it is ridiculous, yea impious and prophane to do it without, and yet confeſs that Children, to whom they apply it have neither.]
Say no more of this for your honours ſake, which hath already ſuffered much for abuſing Authors; you know Baxter, Piſcator, Perkins, Paraeus, Calvin, all ſpeak of grown Perſons, and the laſt with an Aſterisk — Notandum haec verba fieri de Adultis. Therefore, ſaith he, that Men offer themſelves rightly to Baptiſm, Confeſſion of ſin is required, otherwiſe the whole action would be but ſport. But you muſt note, ſaith he, that theſe words are ſpoken of Adult Perſons, but as for the Infant Seed of Believers the caſe alters there; for they being taken into Covenant with their Parent, it is inſtead of Profeſſion; Calv. upon Mat. 19.28. and Mark 16.16. look to the firſt Chap. Part 1. There you have a Vindication of our Divines from the Infamy caſt upon men, as to their ſayings about Baptiſm in contradiction, as he would have people believe, to their own Practices.
5. That the Baptiſmal Covenant enters into the viſible Church, and yet deny Church-members the priviledg thereof.]
This is co-incident with what we have before, and ſpoken to already.
6. That ſeparate from Rome as a falſe Church, and yet own their Baptiſm the foundation thereof.
A little before he hath this Odious Reflection upon infant-Baptiſm, that it confirms the whole Antichriſtian Intereſt] and now the Aſſertors of it are condemned for owning their Baptiſm. I conceive it therefore fit that ſomething be briefly ſaid for our Vindication. Firſt then, I take this to be the common Judgment of Divines: That Parents ought not to tender their Children to be Baptized by Hereticks, or by Romiſh Prieſts in a Superſtitious way; yet being done, Baptiſm ſo Adminiſtred, ought not to be reiterated. For even Auſtin himſelf, as zealous as he was for Baptiſm,Danaeus ex lib. 1 Auguſt de Bapt. contra Donatiſtas. is expreſs upon the Caſe in his firſt Book de Baptiſmo againſt the Donatiſts — Non damnari Baptiſmum Chriſti ab Haereticis Paſtoribus, ut nullus cenſeatur, ſed damnamus illos qui ſcientes illic accipiunt; That Baptiſm is not to be condemned for a Nullity, which hath been received from Hereticks, but ſuch are to be condemned, who knowing them to be ſuch, do yet receive it of them. Bucan ſtates the Caſe in his 16 Queſtion de Baptiſmo, Bucan: Inſtitutiones Theolog. Loc. 47. Queſt. 16. p. 614.thus, Anne qui vere Chriſtianam Religionem edocti ſunt, parvulos ſuos ſacrificulis pontificiis Baptizandos bonâ conſcientiâ offerre poſſunt? Whether they who are truly taught the Chriſtian Religion may with a good conſcience tender their Children, to Maſs-Prieſts to be Baptized? he holds it negatively for divers weighty reaſons. As,
1. Becauſe by that Act we own their falſe and Antichriſtian Miniſtry,Quia corruptelis tum Doctrinae, tum Sacramentorum & ſuperſtitioſis Cultibus, falſae item & illegittimae vocat…ni Antichriſti Miniſtrorum, exemplo noſtro probandis & confirmandis, nullam occaſionem praebere debemus &c. and confirm them in their Superſtitions. Whereas we are bound to abſtain from all appearance of evil, and not to partake with them in their ſins.
2. Becauſe we are not to do evil, that good may come thereof.
3. Becauſe we are to depart and go out from amongſt them, and touch no unclean thing, Iſ. 52. 11. and to abſtain from Idols, 1. Joh. 5.21.
4. Becauſe if our Infants dye unbaptized (we refuſing to have them Baptized in a Superſtitious manner, which is beſt) they are not thereby deprived of their intereſt in the Covenant of God's Grace [and Salvation is from the Covenant and not the Seal] for it is not the want, but the contempt of Baptiſm that is damnable.
It was on this account that the Waldenſes kept their Children from Baptiſm; for Perin in his Hiſtory of that people tells us,Paul Perin, Hiſt. Walden. Cap. 4. p. 15. That they delayed the Baptiſm of their Children until their Paſtors came home who were imployed abroad in the ſervice of the Church; becauſe they had in deteſtation thoſe human inventions, which were added to that Holy Sacrament, which they held to be but pollutions thereof: which the Popiſh Prieſts obſerving, ſtigmatized them with that calumny that they were againſt the Baptiſm of Children, [and from their Mouths the Author hath taken up that falſe report, and publiſhed it to the World; but God will not bleſs ſuch unjuſt courſes.]
On the other hand the Rule holds true in many Caſes: Fieri quod non licet, factum valet; A thing which ought not to be done, yet being done, it may be of force and valid; as in other Caſes, ſo likewiſe in this of Baptiſm: though none ſhould tender their Children to be Baptized by Romiſh Prieſts in a ſuperſtitious way; yet being done, Baptiſm ſo Adminiſtred ought not to be reiterated. Auſtin gives divers Reaſons in his firſt Book of Baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts that were for Rebaptization; ſhewing moſt convincingly, that becauſe Baptiſmus ex perſonarum & Miniſtrorum dignitate non pendet, ne que dantis aut accipientis Baptiſmum error delet & mutat id quod a domino conſtitutum eſt. Becauſe Baptiſm depends not upon the dignity of Perſons or Miniſters,Danaeus ex L. Auguſt. contra Donatiſt. p. 674. the Error of him that gives or receives it doth not nullify the Ordinance of Chriſt; yet this is alwayes to be remembred, that if the eſſential form of Baptiſm hath been corrupted in the Adminiſtration thereof, the Baptiſm becomes invalid, and is a meer nullity, and perſons taking up the Ordinance de novo, in a right way, cannot be ſaid to be rebaptized, becauſe the former was not Chriſt's Baptiſm but a Nullity: for as Zanchy ſpeaks, he that Baptizeth, but not in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but is corrupt in the Doctrine of the Trinity, as the Arrians and Manichaeans were] ſuch a Baptiſm is none of Chriſt's Baptiſm. Decſt enim vera Baptiſmi forma: the right forme of Baptiſm is wanting. I ſhall conclude this with the Judgment of two Divines of the Congregational way: The firſt is Mr. Cotton of New-England in his Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptiſm, where he anſwers this Objection: How can we think that Baptiſm Valid, and not Null, which is Adminiſtred by Dumb-dogs &c? viz.
Anſwer.
Though God delighteth not to make uſe of ſuch inſtruments, yet I dare not ſay that their Adminiſtration of the Seals, which are given not for Converſion, but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities, or that the Baptiſm Adminiſtred by them is to be reiterated. Take an inſtance in the Circumciſion of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apoſtacy, and the caſting out of the Prieſts and Levites, 2 Chron. 11.14, 15. It was generally Adminiſtred by wicked Prieſts, and Men that had no regular call thereunto: when the Prieſts and Levites were caſt out of Office in the 10 Tribes, Jeroboams Prieſts came in their room, which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law, as thoſe ye call Dumb-Dogs; 1 Kings 13.33. 2 Cor. 15.3.
2. We muſt put a difference betwixt the Eſſentials of an Ordinance, and ſome Circumſtantial Additions, and Corruptions: if there be a Corruption in the Eſſenee, or ſubſtance of the Ordinance, as for Inſtance, if Perſons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoſt, but into the Name of a Creature, then ſuch Baptiſm is void and null, and the party ought to be Baptized again: But if there be a Corruption only in the External Adminiſtration of the Ordinance, though every Chriſtian ſhould labour to avoid ſuch Corruption, and if he hath been intangled therewith, humble himſelf deeply before God for it; yet ſuch Baptiſm is valid for the ſubſtance of it, and ſhould not be reiterated. At this day the Proteſtant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize thoſe Perſons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome, which being adminiſtred in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoſt, is held for true Baptiſm, for the ſubſtance of it.
The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way, pag. 70. Thoſe Chriſtians, ſaith he, which of late days (calling into queſtion the Truth and Lawfulneſs of their Baptiſm) have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing, and taking up the Ordinance of Baptiſm de novo, are utterly void, and altogether to ſeek of a true and juſt ground from the Scripture, for their Practice herein; and ſo this latter Baptiſm of theirs, will be found as unlawful, becauſe unlawfully Adminiſtred. For if the Adminiſtration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers, and thoſe to a particular Church, ſince the Apoſtles times, that give them their lawful and right Call to Adminiſter the Ordinances; then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptiſm, but by him that is an Officer of ſome particular Church, and he that is an Officer of ſome particular Church, muſt have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer; for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commiſſion immediately from Heaven are ceaſed. Now thoſe that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner; but are enforced to hold that a Diſciple in Common, that by the exerciſe of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways, may alſo Baptize him: [which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptiſts,Mr. Hooker of new-England, in his Survey of Church-Diſcipline, C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathſomneſs of itſelf]; For if that were true what need of Chriſt's Ordaining Officers in his Church for theſe purpoſes? or why may not a Godly Woman (by her good exhortations and chaſt converſation, Converting her Huſband) Baptize him?