An Antidote Against the Venom Regarding Richard Baxter, Section 1 – Section 4
SECT. 1. Of Anabaptiſts accuſing their own Children.
THere came newly to my hands this following paſſage, which becauſe it doth mainly reflect on my ſelfe, I conceive my ſelfe neceſſitated to anſwer it.
Anabaptiſts, ſaith Mr. Baxter, play the Divells part in accuſing their own Children and diſputing them out of the Church and Covenant of Chriſt, and affirming them to be no Diſciples, no ſervants of God, nor holy as ſeparated to him; when God ſaith the contrary, Levit. 25. 41. 42. Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. &c. Acts 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14.
Anſw. Though Mr. Baxter ſpeaks of Anabaptiſts in the plurall, yet the paſſage it ſelfe, and the circumſtances of it, well known in theſe partes, evidence it to be directed either ſolely, or mainly againſt my ſelfe. The terme [Anabaptiſts] I own not, any more, then my Infant ſprinkling, The Faith I owne, but not the Ceremony They are unjuſtly called Anabaptiſts who have beene Baptized after their own profeſſion of the faith of Chriſt, though they had water ſprinkled or poured on their faces by an Officiating Prieſt when they were Infants. Sprinkling is not Baptizing, nor Infants the Subjects of the Baptiſme of Water appointed by Chriſt, or practiſed by the Apoſtles. Mr. Baxter offered to prove, In the beginning of the Diſpute after mentioned, that dipping in cold water is murder and Adultery. It ſeems he dare undertake to prove, the ſnow black, he is ſo confident of his nimble wit, and ready tongue. Thouſands in the primitive times, (in which Baptizing was by dipping until Hieroms time at leaſt in the 4th. Century) Thouſands in theſe dayes are ſo baptized without murder or adultery. And therefore Mr. Baxters aſſertion is contrary to ſenſe and experience. He may do much I believe, but will never be able to prove Infant Baptiſme, or ſprinkling inſtead of it, to be the duty ordained by Chriſt, Math. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 16. The ſeven Churches under Baptiſme about London diſclaime the Title of Anabaptiſts, in the Preface to their Confeſſion of faith, under that terme all the Pelagian and Arminian errours, all thoſe peſtilent errours of Community of Goods, denying civill Magiſtracy, lawfullneſſe of taking an Oath to end ſtrife and ſundry other are charged on them, that deny Infant Baptiſme, I may well ſay] in a Diveliſh manner, by many Preachers; to make them odious to the people; that they might drive them away out of the Land; if not deſtroy them: and therefore if Mr. Baxter, who knowes how odious the terme is, had minded equity or peace he had choſen rather to ſtile us Antipaedobaptiſts, then Anabaptiſts. But what ſayes he of us? Anabaptiſts play the Devils part in accuſing their own Children. A moſt virulent charge, which ſhews Mr. Baxter kept no moderation of ſpirit, nor heeded what he wrote. The Devils part in accuſing, is either by himſelfe, or his Inſtruments, before God, or before men, or in their own conſcience. Mr. Baxter may as ſoone bring water out of a pumice ſtone, as prove we do, any of theſe wayes, play the Devills part. But perhaps it will be ſaid we accuſe them however. To accuſe, is to charge with a fault or crime. I know no fault or crime we charge our Children with meaning onr infant Children, but their birth ſin; of which Mr. Baxter hath been heard to charge them, as deep as any of us. But it is unnaturall in us, to accuſe our own Children perhaps. I bleſſe God he hath given me Children, to whom I bear a naturall affection, as tender as another. If Mr. Baxter meane, denying Baptiſme to belong to them in infancy, to be the playing the Devils part in accuſing them, he muſt give me leave to think, that he himſelfe playes the Devills part in aſſerting, that it belongs to them till he prove it appointed by Chriſt, or uſed by his Apoſtles (which I expect to be done by him, ad Graecas Calendas) and ſo much the rather do I think he playes the Devills part therein, becauſe experience proves, that Thouſands are hardned in carnal preſumption, to their perdition by conceiving their Infant Baptiſme to make them Chriſtians, and ſo heires of heaven.
SECT. 2. Of Anabaptiſts diſputing their Children out of the Church and Covenant of Chriſt.
ANother thing wherein Mr. Baxter ſayes we play the Divels part is in diſputing our Children out of the Church and Covenant of Chriſt. I anſwer. The Church of Chriſt is either viſible or inviſible: the Covenant of Chriſt may be meant either of Chriſts Covenant to them, or theirs to Chriſt: by diſputing them out of the Church may be meant either that by our diſputing, we keep them out of the Church and Covenant of Chriſt, or caſt them out being admitted. It is true I have aſſerted in diſputation that according to the conſtitution of the viſible Church of Chriſtians Infants are not viſible Church Members and I ſtill aſſert it. For the viſible Church of Chriſtians is a company of believers art. 19 of the Church of England; and therefore till a perſon is a believer he is not a viſible Church member according to the frame of the Chriſtian Church, which is not a whole Nation joyned together in one Community by the civill Magiſtrate, as the Jewiſh Church was, but a company of believers made ſuch by the preaching of the Goſpel. And this definition of the viſible Church was formerly received among Proteſtants without the addition which the Aſſembly lately put to it in their Confeſſion of Faith ch. 25 is avouched in diſputes againſt Papiſts concerning the notes of the Church: As for the inviſible Church or Covenant of Chriſt to them I have often ſhewed in my examen of Mr. Marſhalls Sermon and elſewhere that I do ſay as much concerning their intereſt in them as Mr. Marſhall ſpeaking conſideratly will avouch. I thank God by my preaching and diſputing. Sundry have beene brought into the Church and Covenant of Chriſt, none do I know that have been kept, or caſt out by my diſputing, and therefore in this accuſation of me, Mr. Baxter may be more truly ſaid to play the Divils part then my ſelfe.
SECT. 3. Of Anabaptiſts affirming their Children to be no Diſciples, no ſervants of God nor holy as ſeparated to God.
BUt however perhaps I play the Divels part in the third thing Mr. Baxter ſayes Anabaptiſts do, affiirming them to be no Diſciples, no Servants of God, nor holy as ſeparated to God.
This I am ſure alludes to the diſpute between me and Mr. Baxter, in which Mr. Baxter would have proved Infants might be baptized, becauſe Diſci…les of Chriſt which he would prove out of Acts. 15. 10. And becauſe they are called ſervants of God, which he would prove from Levit. 25, 41. 42. and holy as ſeparated to God from 1 Cor. 7. 14. And members of the viſible Church, becauſe of their entring into Covenant. Deut. 29. 10. 11, 12. And this was the maine of his diſpute of which he ſo much crakes in this paſſage of his preface to his book, in which he urged no more Texts, that I remember, out of which he concluded Infant Baptiſme, excepting that of Rom. 11. 19. 20. The thing that I affirmed in the diſpute was, that Infants are not ſervants of God as it is equipolent to Diſciples of Chriſt, for one that actively and willingly ſerves God, ſuch ſervice of God alwayes requiring the uſe of reaſon, which Infants have not. In which ſenſe alſo I denyed them to be Diſciples, that is ſuch as being taught the Goſpell of Chriſt by preaching of it, do embrace it, which ſort of Diſciples only are appointed to be baptized Math. 28. 19. compared with Mark 16. 15. Mr. Baxter The Saints everl. reſt, Page 549. He gave them authority to ſend forth others on the ſame meſſage, and to baptize and gather Churches. As for the terme [holy as ſeparated to God] the thing I ſaid in the diſpute was conc…rning the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether there [holy] be as much as ſeparated to God, which I denied. But for the thing it ſelfe, could I have had liberty to expreſſe my ſelfe without checking, (which all that were preſent know I could not have in the diſputation) I would have diſtinguiſhed of a ſtate of ſeparation unto God either by election, as ſeparation is taken: Gal. 1. 13. or by calling, in the former ſenſe, I deny not but our children are or may be holy, as the Jewes yet unborne are ſaid to be Rom. 11. 16. which thing I alſo in my Exercitation pag. 10. had heretofore ſhewed in my anſwer to the argument for Infants baptiſme out of 1 Cor. 7. 14. but in the latter I deny it. If Mr. Baxter underſtand it in a third ſenſe I ſhall give an anſwer about it, when I underſtand what way he affirmes, our children are ſeparated to God.
SECT. 4. Of the Text Levit. 25. 41. 42. alleaged to prove our Children Gods ſervants.
BUt Mr. Baxter ſayes, God ſaith the contrary to my affirmation Levit. 25. 41. 42. Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. act 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The text Lev. 25. 41. 42. ſaith the Hebrew ſervant ſhall not be held in bondage, but till the year of Iubilee, then he ſhall depart both he and his Children, for they are Gods ſervants, But this Text ſpeaks only of the Iſraelites Children whom God brought out of the Land of Egypt, and the reaſon of their being his ſervants, is taken meerly from that, and to ſhew the priviledge they had above other ſervants and their Children, and diſtinguiſhingly v 55. unto me the Children of Iſrael are ſervants what is this to our Children? God ſaith, the children of the Iſraelites are Gods ſervants, I ſay our Children are not, is there any contrariety in theſe ſpeeches where the ſubjects of the propofitions are not the ſame? Beſides when I ſaid our Children, that is our Infant Children are not Gods ſervants, I meant actually, but that which God ſaith, Levit. 25. 42: that they are his ſervants, is meant only of what they are de jure of right, and then the predicates of the Propoſitions are different, and therefore no contrariety, yet again, ſervants of God are either actively ſuch or paſſively, as the Heavens: Pſal. 119. 91. are called Gods ſervants: Nebuchadnez…zer is called, Gods ſervant, Ierem. 43. 10. were the Heavens and Nebuchadnezar Diſciples of Chriſt and to be baptized?