An Antidote Against the Venom Regarding Richard Baxter, Section 6
SECT. 6. Of the text Acts 15. 10. alleaged to prove our Infants Diſciples of Chriſt.
THe next Text alleaged by Mr. Baxter is Acts 15. 10. where he would have it thought, that God ſayes that our Infant Children are Diſciples, and therefore to be baptiſed according to the inſtitution, Math. 28. 19. To which I anſwer. 1. By putting Mr. Baxter in mind of his own objection againſt my interpretation of the words, 1 Cor 7. 14. [but now are they holy] that it is more likely the word ſhould be taken in a ſenſe in which it is 600. times taken for [ſeparated to God] then in my ſenſe, in which it is no where elſe taken ſignifying [legitimate.] For if this reaſon be good, it holds againſt himſelfe, who takes the word [Diſciples] in a ſenſe applicable to Infants, in which ſenſe it is no where elſe taken, though it be uſed for one that is a follower of a Tencher 300. times in the Evangeliſts, and the Acts of the Apoſtles, of which either 100. or very neare it is uſed by Luke 2. Mr. Baxters interpretation will apaeare to be manifeſtly wreſted to any that will but conſider that the putting the yoak on the necks of the Diſciples, is the ſame with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren, and v. 5. they ſaid that it was needfull to circumciſe them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moſes, and v. 24. certaine which went out from us, have troubled you with words, ſubverting your ſoulis ſaying, ye muſt be circumciſed and keep the Law. Now if any man ſo ſenceleſſe as to think they did theſe things to Infants? 3. The Text v. 1. 23. calls them brethren, ſayes v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but thoſe that are reſolved to outface a plaine truth would averre to be meant of Infants. 4. Laſtly Mr. Baxter confeſſed in privat conference with mee, that the putting the yoak was by teaching, and indeed it may eaſily be evinced that their act was not to take a knife or ſharp ſtone and therewith in their owne perſons cut off the little skin of male Infants, but that they made it their bufineſſe to ſubvert the ſoules of converted Gentiles to hold it neceſſary that they ſhould be circumciſed themſelves: if the putting the yoak had been actuall circumciſion, it had not been put on their necks, but elſewhere. Beſides actuall circum…tion that is, the loſſe of a little skin was and might be borne, and is at this day by many people whereas it is ſaid, the Yoak they put was ſuch as neither the preſent Iewes, nor their Fathers were able to beare. From all which I inferre that none are there meant by the terme [Diſciples] but they that were taught by the falſe Teachers, nor the yoak any other then the Doctrine or opinion of the neceſſity of circumciſion, and keeping of Moſes his Law. In like manner Chriſts Doctrine is called his yoak Math. 11. 29. 30. Piſc. in his Scholie on Acts 15, 10. Iugum foreign nempe legem Moſis ex collatione v. 5. Grot. amot. ad Actor 15. 10. Rabbini uſurpant de doctrina quae aliquid omnino faciendum inculcat, And in like manner the yoak of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Law Gal. 4. 21. And is generally by Divines handling the Doctrine of Chriſtian liberty made to be the teaching and holding circumciſion and Moſes Law as the neceſſary way to juſtification and ſalvation, and that the Habaſſine Chriſtians who are circumciſed yet are not intangled with the yoak of bondage, becauſe their conſciences are free, and ſo it is to be underſtood v. 2. whoſoever is circumciſed that is, who is circumciſed willingly out of the opinion of its neceſſity, and ſufficiency to ſalvation Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing, yea but ſaith Mr. Baxter it is circumciſion as obliging to Moſes Law, and if it be not meant of circumciſion circumciſion is not condemned in that Councel. I anſwer, All the Colour Mr. Baxter hath from this Text to prove Infants diſciples is by conceiving the yoak to note barely and preciſely the cutting off a little skin: but to ſay it is circumciſion as obliging to Moſes Law is to ſay the ſamewhich I ſay that it is not circumciſion as acted, but as taught, ſith the Doctrin or command obliged to Moſes Law, not the bare cutting away the little skin. And yet circumciſion is in that councel taken away, ſith he that by teaching, ſhewes the command to ceaſe, doth thereby take away the practiſe, as with us they that deny Ordinances do binddo take away the uſe of them yet further if it were granted Mr. Baxter, that the yoak were the taking away of the little skin the terme Diſciples would not neceſſarily comprehend Infants, though the falſe Teachers aimes were alſo to have Infants circumciſed, yet they would firſt have the Bre-sthren of years circumciſed & ſo the tearm [Diſciples] note only them, although Infants ſhould be by that means circumciſed, yet not meant by the terme [Diſciples] Laſtly were it granted that the terme [Diſcples] did note Infants, yet it could note no other then males according to Mr. Baxters owne explication, for they only were to be circumciſed, and therefore femall Infants ſhould not be thence proved Diſciples, nor to be Baptized.
From all which the Reader may perceive how ſleighly theſe arguments of Mr. Baxter are, and how ſuperficially he hath handled this buſineſſe.