you or me secret things belong to the Lord. Deut. 29. Reply 1. You mis-cite Mr. Cook who saith p) Font uncovered p. 1â— Faith OR interest in Christ or the Covenant of grace constitutes c. Not faith and interest in Christ There is a broad difference between a disjunctive and copulative proposition If one should say you are an Anabaptist or a Romish Priest or a Jesuite you would acknowledge this proposition true but if one should say you are an Anabaptist and a Romish Priest and a Jesuite it may be you would say it's false though others think it true Beside you leave out those words viz. or Covenant of grace It s plain you had a design here to deceive For in your p. 22 23. you truly set down the words when you had no purpose to answer them but here you chop and change them all least the words should speak for themselvs as they do apparently You confound those things Mr. Cook doth distinguish who holds that either professed faith or interest in Christ and the Covenant makes one a Christian which last is the case of Infants according to Gods gracious q) Gen. 17.7 Luk. 18.16 Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 grant and declaration In a word They who have true faith have interest in Christ and in the Covenant of grace yet all who have interest in Christ and the Covenant of grace have not actuall faith 2 Now all may see the lameness of your Argument viz. Infants have no interest in Christ because they cannot make it out which makes as much against Circumcision as against Infant-baptism at least is as absurd as if an Infant had no interest in that which is conveighed to him by a deed of gift because forsooth he cannot make it out and in brief it 's as false as that you boldly affirm without any proof viz. All our Infants are baptized into the Church of England unless it be taken with a grain of salt 3. By your saying Very well if any sense can be made of your words you grant that faith and interest in Christ constitutes a Christian Hold you to this and there 's an end of this controversie viz. That Baptisme doth not constitute a Christian For Baptisme is neither faith nor interest in Christ both which may be without Baptisme as you confesse in the penitent Thief and Baptisme may be without either as in Simon Magus and all hypocrites 4. For your Query If by making out c. you mean an infallible discovery of saving Faith and real interest in Christ from communion with him we who are ignorant of mens hearts expect no such making out But if you mean such a discovery of your interest in the Covenant of grace as hath been always accounted sufficient for externall Church-membership it 's sufficiently made out in your Book yea and in that very Chapter r) Deut. 29.10 11 12. you cite and elswhere In a word God's promise and the parents Faith are not such secret things as not belonging to you and me but things clearly revealed in God's Word as the fore-mentioned Scriptures shew SECT 7. H. H. Again you say that joint and orderly profession of Faith and interest in the Covenant doth constitute a Church Very well and is not Repentance and Baptisme an orderly profession of the Faith Doth not the Apostle sâ—â— Å¿) Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized And is not putting on Christ profession c. Gal. 3.27 Reply 1. Here again is another instance in wronging Mr. Cook for you have lest out these words Font uncovered p. 1. viz. s or God's owning a people to be his in Covenant Now though adult Jews and Gentiles might and ought to make profession of their Faith and Interest in the Covenant for themselvs and theirs also according to the Tenor of the Covenant yet Infants it 's granted could not make such a profession for themselvs But God 's owning them for his people is an Authentical declaration of their interest in the Covenant according to the fore-named and other places of Scripture 2. If Repentance and Baptism be an orderly profession of Faith then not Baptisme alone and if so Then Baptism doth not constitute a Christian For the cause must not be partial but total which compleats the effect 3. Repentance and Baptism are not of the like necessity though you conjoin them Without Repentance adult people cannot be saved no such thing can be truly said of Baptism If you take them severally that Repentance is a sufficient profession in some and Baptism in others then Infants that cannot repent may make a sufficicient profession of Christ 4. Though the use of and submission to Baptism is a part of Christian profession yet not exclusively to other duties as the use of the Word Praier Lord's Supper c. which yet do not constitute a Church-member but presuppose Church-membership onely let it be remembred That as the professed Repentance of the wicked Jews and Gentiles is a profession of their interest in the Covenant and a declaration of their right to Baptism which is a sign of Church-membership So God's owning Believers Infants is no lesse a declaration of their right to Baptism wherein Church-membership is sealed 5. You need not prove that Baptism is a part of our profession of Christ we grant it is an Ordinance of Christ in the observation of which among others Christ is professed but that it is the whole or onely or first profession of Christ whereby a Christian is constituted is not yet proved by you 6. The Apostle doth not say Gal. 3.27 have put on Christ in or by Baptism that is your Glosse put on the Apostles text The Galathians might and did put on Christ other waies Though your Baptism might be a sign of it and that in part onely And indeed the Apostles meaning is not that baptisme is properly and adequately but Sacramentally and significatively a putting on of Christ Because 1. else all that are truly baptized should in that very act truly put on Christ but that did not Simon Magus nor any Hypocrite now 2. The Apostle in exhorting baptized Saints to put t) Rom. 13.14 on Christ which is to bee done daily should exhort them to be baptized daily which is absurd 3. We should with the Papists hold that the Sacraments of the N. T. do by the work done confer grace SECT 8. H. H. Consider it again Doth not a man that puts on a garment profess to wear it to all spectators whilst it is upon him So they that put on Christ profess to own him before all men And Mr. Baxter himself calls it A listing engaging Ordinance I hope you will not deny his Doctrine to be Orthodox though you cavil with the Scriptures Now seeing by Baptism we put on and professe Christ it 's evident out of your own mouth that it constitutes a Church or else you must say They are constituted before they put on Christ Reply 1. If
more of this 2. If you mean there were no Infants at all in Rome or Philippi a man had need of the faith of an Anabaptist to believe you or it I'ts said All Jerusalem was troubled with Herod Matth. 2. ver 3. Infants could not bee troubled with him Therefore there was no Infant in Jerusalem This reasoning is as good as yours i. e. stark naught But if you mean as it seems that no little children could understand speak c. who saith so 3. It 's cold comfort to believing parents that their Infants are not Saints in Christ then sure they are little Heathens but is not this contradictory to the same Apostle who calls indefinitely children even of one believing parent 1 Cor. 7.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancti sunt So Beza and the Old Latine g Saints so is the word in the originall and are any saved by Christ but Saints you hold all we some Infants dying in their Infancy are saved by Christ 4. Paul here undertakes nothing less then the dashing Infants-believers out of the number of Saints or Church-members The universal particles ALL and EVERY one must be restrained as was said to the scope and subject matter e.gr. All the Saints salute i. e. All that were with him at the writing of this Epistle as appears by this very Scripture which you bring Phil. 4.21 22. All the brethren salute you And so salute EVERY Saint i. e. That is capable of such salutations So that your major is not proved by this Scripture at all SECT 15. H. H. p. 71. If children are not concerned in these salutations then they are not visible Saints in Christ nor visible members of his body the Church c. For the text saith plainly Phil. 4.21 Salute EVERY Saint Reply 1. As to that they are Saints in Christ I have spoken to even now 2. The Scripture no where mentions visible Saints or visible members Must we be still troubled with your unwritten traditions 3. If you might as well conclude that Infants are no creatures for to shoot in your bow the Text saith plainly Mar. 16.15 Preach the Gospel to EVERY creature and that birds and beasts and plants c. are not creatures For the text saith plainly Col. 1.23 The Gâ—spel was preached to EVERY creature which is under heaven or that the Jews Infants were not câ—iâ—dren of Israel For the text saith plainly Numb 36.8 EVERY one of the children of Israel shall keep himself SECT 16. H. H. p. 71 72. There are many probable Arguments remaining but the answers to them take much with those that set their Faith in other mens wisedoms and not in the power and wisedom of the Word of God 1 Cor. 2 4 5. But I shall omitt them Because these twelve are undenyable c. Onely I will give you one probable Argument out of Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Reply 1. You said your 12 and last Argument p. 70. How is that your last if many or but one more bee in your budget or were they demonstrative and these probable what probable after demonstratives or were all the former at best but probable not to me but to you whose faith is built on more probabilities 2. If it might be made manifest then it seems it i. e. your Tenent is not yet made manifest to the impaâ—â—â—ll Reader 3. If you know many seeming Answers would bee made to them how could you imagine none would be made to these 12. 4. I know not who those are you rave upon except perhaps your poor deluded Proselytes who pin their faith on your sleeve and take hand over head all for Gospel which you say Onely this I know you abuse Scripture again For the words are â— Cor. 3.5 That your faith should not stand in the wisedom of men but in the power of God Will you bee still at your old Trade of ADDING Take heed of the plagues you threaten others with 5. You may now find by experience the vanity of your confidence there Aâ—guments of yours are not onely deny-able and damnable also bear with the word but truly denyed and justly damned too 6. For Mat. 18. You have SIN instead of trespass which though perhaps all one yet you should not chop and change at pleasure aâ— you have left AS For you say to thee an Heathen whose son are you now p. 42. And for the three Arguments you draw from this text there is more in the conclusion then in the premisses which heretofore hath been a great fault in Argumentation And in the end you seem to grant that the word WHOLE Church is not in the text why then did you put it into your third particular but that you had a mind to cozen your Reader Indeed by the Church here is to be understood the Church-guides as before out of Act. 8.1 as appears by the eight and ninth verses Whatsoever ye shall bind c. Whatsoever ye shall loose c. If two of you shall agree So that it is as clear as the Sun that the Church here is the Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of the Church And then your threefold cord is as easie broken as that was by Samson 7. To conclude in generall for these Arguments which are thirteen to the dozen let the Reader observe There is not one word of Church-member or Church-member-ship in any one of the Scriptures cited Yet Mr. Hag. would bear us in hand that he holds nothing but what is expressed in the Scriptures Where is your written word for your belief in this very point under debate 2. Because you import that you put but little confidence in your probable Arguments I had thought to have left them as I find them but least you and yours should crow I have given some brief Animadversions and would let you understand that it were very easie to find our without vanity be it spoken many dozens of Arguments in Moses and the Prophets that might conclude as probably against the Church-membership of the Old Testament-Infants as any you have or can bring against childrens Church-membership in the New And as easie to bring multitudes of Argumemts out of the New Testament that might as probably conclude against the salvation of any Infants so dying as any you bring against the Church-membership or Covenant-state of Christians Infants Though you profess your perswasion of the salvation of ALL Infants so dying yet by your way of Arguing ALL Infants should not only be cast out of the Church but out of salvation too CHAP. XIV Of the Disciple-ship of INFANTS SECT 1. H. H. p. 73. I proceed to prove in opposition to M. Baxter and M. Cooks Arguments that Infants are not cannot be Christ's Disciples My first Argument is from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations c. The plain English of which M. Baxter himself confesseth to be Make Disciples c. From whence I argue thus If those Disciples which Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize must be first
this Christs Disciples must and do bear his Cross and come after him But Infants while such cannot bear his Cross and come after him Therefore they cannot be his Disciples Reply 1. This Argument is of the same nature with most of the former It concludes only of such as are adult Disciples savingly taught of God sanctified by the Spirit and accepted of Christ whereas again the Question is of such who may make visible Church-members of which sort many are and must be Disciples who are without those characters as Judas and all Hypocrites more particularly 2. This is spoken to and of persons of years not to or of Intants as such verse 25.33 3. Though this is spoken to t) See Sect. 9. of this Chap. in your p. 78. yet They that are Infants now may hereafter do coming to years all this yea they have these principles in them by the Spirit as hath been said and proved that will certainly enable them if they live to years to do this 4. As Infants may and do with their parents enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant as you say free-born subjects do of a Kingdom so they may and do undergo the burdens and sufferings of the Cross of Christ and follow him in suffering So that Christ suffered in his Infancy poverty contempt banishment c. Luk. 2.7 Mat. 2.13 to 19. So they penury exile and death too for that Faith in Christ which their parents professe and they implicitely in and with them He is aâ—st anger in Israel that hath not heard of the Massacrings and sufferings of Infants with their parents for Religion sake 5. And this fully answers your ninth Argument being not new but dressed up in a new fashion only you have the knack of multiplying and so filling up Paper whereas you might have comprehended all these in one and made me but one labour but for the sake of the weaker I have been content to follow you in repeating as you inurging the same thing for substance 6. Onely let the Reader if you will not behold as in a glass clearly the rudeness and wildness of your arguing which reflects on the the Apostles as well as on us For if these characters mentioned in your nine foregoing Arguments be necessary for the making owning and sealing of Disciples and if the Apostles did not keep them from Baptism till they had such characters much less till they knew they had such Then either those which they baptized were not Disciples or else they went beyond and beside their Commission or rather their Commission required impossibilities of them What absurdities if not blasphemies do your unreasonable reasonings lead unto I will press this no further nor say any thing of your wonted uncharitable censuring as if wee never yet learned what a Disciple is and are none our selves CHAP. XV. Whether the Anabaptist's way of Baptizing bee Sinfull SECT 1. H. H. p. 86. I proceed to answer M. Baxter's eight Arguments by which he saith he proveth the Anabaptist's way of baptizing sinfull His first is this There is no word of precept or example in all the Scripture for the baptizing of the child of any one Christian at years of discretion Therefore to defer the baptizing them till then is not the Scripture way Answer page 87. I give him an example viz. Christ who was baptized at years of discretion Luk. 3.21 22. If M. Baxter deny his mother to be a Christian Luk. 1.46 46. I say he knows not what a Christian is and is no Christian himself But to retort there is no word of precept nor example in all the Scripture for baptizing an Infant Therefore that way is sinfull Reply 1. If by Christian you mean the name or title I will be bold to say without danger of your charge that Mary was no Christian for the Disciples were called Christians FIRST in Antioch Acts 11.26 And I would gladly know whether you do or dare judge to use your own expression Mary the mother of Jesus to be no Disciple If you deny I am bold to say you erre not knowing the Scriptures you know not what a Disciple is and that you are none your self But if you understand the substance and truth as I may say of a Christian I cordially acknowledge her a Christian The name Protestant was not used till about Luther's time yet our Divines prove soundly against the Papists that the Protestant Doctrine i. e. The substance of our Religion was professed and practised long before even from the time of Christ and his Apostles to Luther's days This is helpfull not hurtfull to us but hurtfull not helpfull to you For as it shews that for substance the Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament is one and the same though different in manner of administration as hath been proved so the same seal of initiation though in a different way of dispensation 2. As the mother of Jesus was a Christian So John Baptist even in his mothers womb may bee called a Christian who is said to leap for joy the same word with Maries rejoicing onely there z) Luk. 1.44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Noune here a) Jo. 8.58 the Verb Thus Abraham was a Christian who rejoiced the same word used by Mary to see Christ's day to whom also the GOSPEL was preached Gal. 3.8 And thus all the faithfull of the Old Testament were Christians Now if you prove by consequence from that Scripture and truly that Mary was a Christian because shee rejoiced in Christ May not wee prove Infant-Baptism c. by consequence from Scripture too What will you not give YET that liberty which you take 3. For that in Luke 3. concerning Christ his being baptized I have spoken sufficiently to it and will not repeat in your page 38. 4. Your retorting the Argument hath wrought the extorting of this answer It 's strange you can find a Font in a broken Cistern page 8. and yet cannâ—â— find in Scripture precept or example for baptizing one child before years of discretion though never so plainly held forth to you So that M. B. is so far from being wounded with the edge of his own sword that with the keenness thereof it cutts you to the heart SECT 2. H. H. same p. M. Baxter's second Argument is It 's utterly inconsistent with obedience to the rule of Baptizing Answer This is the same with the first Argument Therefore the same answer may serve Reply 1. Then the same Reply might serve too But Secondly you have cunningly left out the word ORDINARILY in M. Baxter's Argument which was a seasonable qualification and very needfull to prevent mistakes to which you have exposed him out of a spitefull design 3. Nay you answer not one word to all the Scriptures and reasons b) See plain Scripture proof c. 8. from p. 126. to 130. he brings clearly and soundly to confirm his Minor In which it seems you
done thus Le ts see how I pray SECT 6. H. H pag. 12. 1. I prove by what is written Jo. 6.11 Christ took loavs and gave thanks Now let them prove by what is written Christ took little children and baptized them If any object Christ took little children and blessed them I answer So he took the loavs and fishes and blessed them doth it therefore follow that he baptized the loavs and fishes I hope not Reply 1. You should prove that here is an expresse command for giving thanks at meals or else you prove nothing Now such an expresse command is neither here nor any where else in Scripture i. e. Terminis terminantibus as M. Hall saith 2. I grant by what is written here giving thanks at meals is proved or may be proved so do we by what is written prove sc by consequence Infant baptism but what is this to your purpose I commend you for saying you prove by what is written not that it is written in so many words there 3. What an unreasonable task do you put upon us that wee must prove by what is written that Christ took little children and baptized them when it is written e) Jo. 4.2 Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples You would hit us home indeed if you could tell us that it is written in the holy Scripture that neither Christ nor John nor the Apostles baptized any little children 4. It 's your mistake in saying So he took the loavs and fishes for when Matthew f) Mat. 14 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks of the loavs fishes he useth one word but when Mark speaks of Little children hee useth another word g) Mar. 10.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. And having taken them up in his armes which is proper to babes and Infants but not to loavs and fishes 5. Indeed it doth not follow that Christ baptized the loavs and fishes or that he baptized little children For I nay the Evangelist doth tell you h) Joh. 4.2 that he baptized not but it follows that these little children were baptized already for imposition of hands was never practized upon any persons that we read of in the i) see Acts. 6.6 and 8.17 and 13.3 and 19.6.1 Tim. 4.14 with 2 Tim. 1.6 N.T. but only on such as were baptized except in order to the working of some miraculous cure now the Evangelists neither mention any malady that these infants had nor any cure that Christ wrought on them Is not the Scripture here as plain for Infant-baptism As yours is for giving thanks at meals c Nay 6. It follows that little children may be baptized now by u◠For shal we refuse to pour water on them on whom Christ did put his hands shall not we baptize such persons whom Christ himself blessed Shall not we receive into the bosome of the Church such whom Christ k) The old Latine hath it Amplixans eos embraced in his arms What though these words do not hold out directly an institution yet they do hold forth plain principles and grounds for administration of Baptism For first it 's Christs expresse scope to shew that infants under the Gospell belong to him or to the Kingdom of Heaven 2. They are capable of a spirituall blessing to bee conveighed by an external sign which they understand not else Christ might only have prayed for them but he took them up into his arms laid his hands on them c. 3. It s Christs will that Infants should be brought to him for a spirituall blessing It could not be by believing for children you say while such are without actuall faith and besides the disciples could not hinder that comming therefore it must be some outward and visible comming viz. by their parents tender and offer therefore by an Ordinance and what Ordinance If not baptism But Mr. Cook l) Font uncovered p. 31. c. hath fully spoke to this Argument which together with the rest you have cunningly waved as being unable to answer SECT 7. H. H. 2. I prove that Paul m) Acts 27.35 took bread and gave thanks in the midst of them all Let them prove that P. or any other Disciple of Christ n) 1 Thes 5. ver 18. took little children and baptized them in the midst of so many or one witness if they can and we will grant all 3. I prove by what is written that it 's the will of God that the Saints should give thanks for all things They must prove by what is written that the Saints should baptize all children before they can speak or understand and I will grant all Reply 1. Sir you must not impose upon your adversaries you are no Law-giver yet the Text in the Acts doth not say In the midst but presence of them all It becomes not you to chop and change the Scripture at your pleasure 2. Admit there be no great difference you may as well believe and conclude the Apostles were not baptized because there is no one witness to prove it 3. Giving thanks at Meals is also proved by these Scriptures and that by consequence onely and so have our worthies proved Infant-baptism 4. Which of us do hold the Baptism of All Children You fight against the man in the Moon We are as much against the baptizing of the children of Turks c. while they remain in Paganism as you are against the baptizing of the children of Christians though according to the Scripture we can put a difference between them but you cannot 5. Why may not children be baptized before they can speak or understand as well as circumcised before Your Argument or rather Answer fights against Circumcsion as well as again Baptism of Infants o) Mat. 19.13 14.15 Mat. 10.13 14 15 16. Luk 18.15 16. 6. I have proved that those Infants mentioned by three Evangelists on whom Christ laid his hands were baptized I hope you will now be as good as your word grant all SECT 8. H. H. pag. 13. 4. I have proved by what is written that men ought to pray every where They must prove that men ought to baptize every where or any where if they can 5. I prove by Scriptures that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord in the Old Testament and likewise in the New Testament that the Saints met together on the first day of the week to break bread Exod. 20.10 with Acts 20.7 Now let them prove by Old or New Testament if ever any children were baptized or that the Saints did baptize Infants if they can Reply 1. As to that of praying every where I have answered already and I love not Tautologie as you do 2. In speaking of Saints baptizing Infants you smell too strong of the Arminian and Popish cask p) Quid obstat our in casu necessit at is non potest à fideli Aliquo Infans Aquam tingi Armin. Apol. c. 25. p. 246. as if any disciple of Christ
any Saint might baptize in some cases for in Acts 20.7 you distinguish between the saints or disciples that met together and Paul that preacht to them 3. The Jews were to keep the seventh day of the week as the Lord's Sabbath therefore we Christians are bound by virtue of that command to keep the first day of the week as God's Sabbath This consequence you seem to grant to be good though in the New Testament there be no expresse command or example for it I now appeal to all Divinity and Logick whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptism be not every way as strong and good viz. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament Ergo Children are to be baptized in the New For as the first day of the week comes in room of the seventh day of the week so Baptism in the room of Circumcision as the Apostle plainly q) Col. 2.10 11 12. holds forth (r) Spanhem part 3 Dub. Evang. 27. p. 94 else the Apostle should not prove what he intended viz. Circumcision is not to be retained 4. That Children were baptized I find in some of Paul's writings f) 1 Cor. 10.2 And were all baptized All the Jews that passed through the sea are here expresly said to be baptized now that there were among them children â—nd little ones it 's as clear in Pharaohs speech to Moses Exod 10 24 Let your little ones also go with you And in the Narrative of Moses Exod. 12.37 Six hundred thousand men beside CHILDREN SECT 9. H. H. 6. I prove by the Scriptures that Christians were Magistrates or men in Authority which Mr. Baxâ—â— desireth to see in bis first position p. 3. for the Eunuch that was baptized Acts 8.38 was a man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians who had the charge of all her treasure ver 27 which title in our daies is no lesse then Lord Treasurer And Sergius Paulus was the Deputy of the Country which men we commonly call Lord Deputies Acts 13.7 to 13. Now let them prove as plainly that any children were baptized c. Reply 1. How you bring in these instances I know not unlesse by head and shoulders as they say Mr. Hall doth not question a Christian Magistracy so far I can see in what you have transcribed from him unlesse perhaps it be comprehended in and concluded from you c. p. 11. 2. You indeavour to prove that which Mr. Baxter denies not neither desires to see He saith How sparing is the New Testament and instanceth in four cases all which you have here cunningly concealed save one I desire you to see your mistake in the position and p. cited by you 3. You disprove the Anabaptists your fellows who cried Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a King or Parlament-man or Justice of the Peace and the like You can find a Lord Treasurer and a Lord Deputy it seems but none of the other can you find but of this in your 31 p. 4. If the Eunuch was a Lord Treasurer and Sergâ—us Paulus a Lord Deputy which is but your conjecture yet they were not Christian Magistrates in Mr. Baxters sense 5. But come I desire to see how you prove by the Scripture that Christians were Magistrates Was the Eunuch a Christian Magistrate because he believed with all his heart So you say your disciples believe and yet none of them Lord Treasurers or Christian Magistrates that I know of or because he was baptized then Sergius Paulus was no Lord Deputy for we read nothing of his being baptized s) And the Eunuch had these Titles before he was baptized or because he was a man of great Authority under the Queen of the Ethiopians so is every Bassa under the great Turk Beside the word signifies one that is eminent for birth or wealth t) Bâ—zi in Luk. 1.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And were they Christian Magistrates of whom the Virgin Mary makes mention Hee hath put down the mighty where the same word isused Or because he had the charge of all her treasure Then the Treasurer of the great Cham of Tartaria is a Christian Magistrate u A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia I deny not but the Eunuch was a great Officer while he was a Jewish Proselite for it 's so in the same verse He came to Jerusalem to worship but whether hee continued in his office after he was baptized it 's more then I know or you dare affirm 6. Let it be observed supposing the Eunuch was a Christian Magistrate you make use of a meer consequence to prove it by for neither the word Christian nor Magistrate is in that history Acts 8.27 SECT 10. H. H. Lastly as for their saying we cannot prove that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized I answer It 's a meer Fable a cunning devised Fable which they have invented with many more like it to turn aside mens ears from the truth 2 Pet. 1.16.2 Tim. 4.3 4. For we can easily prove that God calleth or commandeth all men every where to repent Acts 27. ver 30. And those that did repent were baptized Acts 8.12 as many of the Corinthians Acts 18.8 And the Corinthians were citizens of Corinth a City Therefore Citizens were baptized and that Cavil answered Now let them prove by the Scripiures that children of any degree or quality were baptized before they could speak or understand and we grant all if they cannot let them for shame be silent Reply 1. I am ashamed of your railing and therefore am silent to that onely I say The Lord rebuke you 2. There 's no command to repent in Acts 27.30 but in Acts 17.30 I might deal with you as you do with Mr. Baxter but I spare you and blame the Printer 3. Our Worthies have as easily proved Infant-Baptism Foundation p. 79 80. as you do that men of all ranks and qualities were baptized which is by consequence and not in exprest terms e. g. If all that did repent and believe the Gospel were baptized then men of all ranks and qualities but the former is true therefore the latter And the Corinthians were baptized the Corinthians were Citizens therefore some Citizens were baptized Very good but where is it written That men of all ranks and qualities were baptized Though Mr. Hall spake onely of several sorts or degrees of men or is the word Citizens in Acts 18.8 Wipe your eies and look a little better you may as well prove Kings Queens Lords Husbandmen c. as Citizens baptized that is to say by Consequence How partial are you in your selfe not allowing the same way to us for proof of Infant-baptism for which there is as plain and clear Scripture as for any of your fore-mentioned instances SECT 11. H. H. pag. 14. One thing more I had like to have forgotten viz. They say that we cannot prove that women received the
himself the Son of God i. e. he affirmed and declared himself And look as Baptism is said to save 1 Pet. 3.21 not that it constitutes our salvation but signifies and sealâ— it so in Baptism we may be said to be made members of Christ i. e. our membership is signified c. thereby and not constituted 3. It doth not follow that if Children are made members of Christ c. then they were not before no more then this e) Acts 2.36 God made Christ Lord after his Resurrection therefore he was not so before or that a man is in marriage made such a womans husband therefore he was not so before though precontracted SECT 3. H. H. Now if you disown the Common-praier-book and that Catechism you may disown your Baptism which you had by it and be baptized again as we are Reply 1. I thank you for this Let the Reader or any rational man judge whether you do not here grant that we were once baptized Now it is a received truth that Baptism is but once to be administred to one and the same person as the Jews were but once Circumcised and we are born but once Now baptism is a sign of our new-birth e) Tit. 3 5. That place f) Acts 19.5 which onely seems to favour you doth not befriend you for it 's not said They were Re-baptized or baptized Again Nay it 's clear those words are the words of Paul not of Luke penning that story as appears by the g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Bâ—za in loc and so excellently Cham. t. 4. l. 5. c. 13. n. 44. particles in the 4. and 5. verses shewing plainly that they who were baptized of John were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus or else Johns Baptism and Christs differ which is Popery 2. I appeal to any man whether you may not nay must own the name Anabaptist which so oft in your book you seem to disown For you ingeniously acknowledge that you are baptized again And so much doth the word Anabaptist signifie Thus out of your own mouth you are condemned Do not then condemne them for nick naming you who call you and the men of your perswasion ANABAPTISTS 3. We have no reason to disown our Baptism because of some imaginary nay real corruptions in the Administration no more then the Jews were to renounce their Circumcision because of such corruptions which indeed do not nullifie the Ordinance Shall a Decree in Chancery be rejected because the present Officer is rotten and corrupt Is a Writ or Patent naught and void because signed and sealed by naughty men Was Circumcision ever the worse because Jacobs sons had abused it to over-reach h) Gen. 34. the Shechemites No more is our Baptism on the former supposal SECT 4. H. H. pag. 24. 2. I suppose you will not be so absurd as to own any unbaptized person for a Church-member that hath an opportunity to be baptized neither do I think any of you will have communion with any such in the Lord's Supper or other Ordinances Reply 1. That we will not hold communion with such persons in the Lord's Supper you think right but in that you add or in other Ordinances you think amiss For may we not hold communion with such in hearing the Word preached I trow yes i) 1 Cor. 14.24 25. the Apostle seems to hold it out and I do not find that the Corinthians gave over hearing or preaching because of the presence of an Infidel Now hearing the Word is an Ordinance without doubt and an act of communion also in some sense k) Rhâ—tâ—â—f of Presbyr c. 9. p. 269 c. 2. You sufficiently answer your self For if those that cannot be baptized through want of opportunity though they earnestly desire it and have right as your Answer implies ought to be taken for Church-members notwithstanding the want of Baptism as in the case of the penitent Thief then surely Baptism doth not constitute Churches and Church-members The effect cannot be where the cause is wanting 3. It 's very true profane sleighters and proud rejecters of Baptism are justly reputed no Church-members not because Baptism constitutes Church-members but because obstinate sleighting and rejecting the Sign and Seal of Church-membership is a sleighting and rejecting the thing signified and sealed e. g. The rejecting of Circumcision when it might be had l) Gen 17.14 was a breaking of the Covenant though Circumcision did not constitute the Covenant SECT 5. H. H. 3. No people in Scripture since the Resurrection and Ascention of Christ were ever called a Church of Christ without Baptism Prove it if you can c. Reply 1. What say you to Acts 7.38 A Church in the Wilderness where Stephen calls the Israelites in the Wilderness a Church which was after Christ's Resurrection and Ascention though I confess the people themselvs were long before Christ's Incarnation But to put it out of doubt were not those people the Church of Christ with whom Barnabas and Saul assembled themselvs m) Acts 11.26 in Antioch Yes sure for the Church you say consists of Disciples and it 's said the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch There is a Church of Christ without Baptism for there is no express mention made of Baptism there as was noted before Nay are not the seven Candlesticks called by Christ the seven n) Rev. 1 20. c. 2. c. 3. Churches and by your self acknowledged to be Churches pag. 28. and yet there is not one word of their Baptism in those two Chapters mentioned 2. What though we read not in Scripture of a people call'd a Church after Christ's Ascention without working of miracles Will it follow therefore that Churches are constituted by working of miracles And that it is no true Church that wants miracles Many things may be in a Church and that according to the will of Christ that yet do not constitute a Church We read not of any Churches in Scripture without afflictions persecutions and temptations in some kind or other yet afflictions persecutions and temptations do not constitute Churches and Church-members Armies appear not in the field without their Colours yet Colours do not constitute an Army Markets and Fairs are not kept by a people except perhaps some Quakers without their cloaths on them yet cloaths or putting them on do not constitute Markets and Fairs 3. That place cited by you o) Act. 2.41 47. doth not expresly speak of Addition by Baptism it only shews the number not your manner of your being added to the Church SECT 6. H. H. 4. Your self saith that faith and interest in Christ constitute a Christian very well then But why do you baptize such as cannot believe in Christ nor yet make out their interest in the Covenant of grace They then that do not cannot do so as Infants are not constituted Christians What they are to God is nothing to
and murderers are called God's children and born to him x) Ezec. 16.8.20 21. viz. in respect of the Covenant which though broken by them yet a bill of divorce was not yet given to them Therefore God owns their children as his in Covenant Thirdly They are in Covenant say you because that which is born of the flesh is flesh As if they were not capable of Regeneration even while Infants if so no Infants dying can be saved y) Jo. 3 3 5. but you grant they may and must be saved pag. 60. Therefore of necessity they must be born again But it 's no strange thing to find you either confounding or contradicting your self 5. To conclude this debate about Heb. 8. Observe 1. M. Hag. quotes it not right pag. 57 f. who writes it But this is the Covenant whereas it is in the place cited FOR which is a Ratiocinative not an adversative participle 2. It 's not said here or elsewhere in Scripture that none are under the new Covenant no not under the outward dispensation thereof but they which have those spirituall and saving works on their hearts 3. Neither doth he say that all those gracious works shall be wrought on them the first day of their admission into Covenant Though the habits may be infused at once yet the growth and actings of those habits are by degreâ—s Else we should deny them to be within the Covenant internally who cannot discern distinctly such heart-works 4. When we are speaking of such an externall visible interest in the Covenant as gives to the seed right of entrance into Covenant It is a manifest flying off from the Question to talk of the internall Covenant proper only to the Elect. Especially it is a meer subterfuge to deny childrens being in Covenant and so right to the seal because they have not this spirituall blessing of the Covenant when they themselves dare not undertake that all or perhaps any are of those whom they admit to the seal of the Covenant have these spirituall blessings or be in this respect within the New Covenant CHAP. XII Whether the Infants of Christians and of Heathens are in the same condition as to their Souls SECT 1. H. H. p. 59. f. M. B. saith p. 71 72. in his 21 and 22. Arguments that our doctrine is false For it denies any Infants to be members of the visible Church and leaves us no sound grounded hope of the justification and salvation of any Infants in the world The same saith M. C. in his 13. Argument p. 44. It puts the Infants of christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels and leaves them in the visible kingdom of the Devill c. I Answ 1. Denying that any children are saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in the Covenant as believers are and let M. B. M. C. or any for them prove it by the Scriptures if they can Reply 1. What a wide leap have we here you fairly passe by twenty Arguments of M. Baxters and twelve of M. Cooks though you pretend to answer them in your Title page Very good reason because you could not or would not make any colour or shew of an answer 2. What you here say is no answer at all to any part of the Arguments propoundâ—d may your expression of being saved by virtue of visible Church-membership or being in Covenant as believers are is very ambiguous and fallacious Though their Church-member-ship and Covenant-ship if so I may say have been proved by many Arguments which you have not so much assayed to answer 3. Yeâ— I shall ex abundancâ— prove it because you challenge any man by these few Arguments grounded on Scripture c. Though you grant Infants are saved and that cannot be but by Covenant c. First They that are saved by Christ are saved by Covenant for Christ is the Covenant his blood is the blood of the Covenant as you acknowledge a) p. 58. from Is 49.8 Heb. 13.20 bâ—t those children that are saved are saved by Christ Rom. 5.18 Therefore Secondly They that are saved by the Mediator of the New Covenant are saved by means of being in the New Covenant For there is no other Mediator 1 Tim. 2 5. and â—hrist saves none as Mediator of the Covenant but those whom he brings into covenant else why call'd a Meditâ—our of the covenant but some children are saved by the Mediator of the New covenant Therefore Thirdly they who are without Christ Church-membership and covenant â—re without hope without God in the world and in a perishing condition but Elect Infants are not without God without hope in a perishing conditioÌ„ Therefore not without Christ Church-membership covenant 4. The Church all his members are in covenant w th God for it is by covenaÌ„t b) Hos 2.19 20. that she is made the Spouse of Christ but som infants are made Church-meÌ„bers for whom Christ dyed c) Ep. 5.26 27. as wel as for grown persoÌ„s herefore they are in covenant by consequence saved by virtue thereof Fifthly from your ground which surely you lay on Scripture He that proves Infants dying are saved by Christ's death proves that they are saved by virtue of the covenant for the covenant is ratified by Christ's death but M. Hâ—g proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of Christ's death p. 61. or else he doth not prove it by Scripture Therefore M. Hag. proves that Infants dying are saved by virtue of the covenant I hope you will not deny your own assertion and therefore not yours and my Conclusion 4. This labour might have been spared For you confesse if your words bear any sense that Infants are in covenant though not in that manner as believers are SECT 2. H. H. p. 60. Secondly I answer there is no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers in their Nonage For the children of the one at best are but innocent and so are the children of unbelievers Psal 106.37 38. and those that are innocent God will not destroy Exod. 23.7 with Job 22.30 Prov. 6.16 17. Reply 1. If there be no difference you grant M. Cooks Minor proposition and therefore must own the Conclusion Abominable doctrine indeed viz. that puts no difference between the children of Christians and of Turks to be abhorred of all those that have heard of God's Covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob the people of Israel and Church of the New Covenant which I leave to be considered and lamented 2. I suppose the word BUT should be left out they are BUT innocent unless you mean they are only freed from and acquitted of the gift of sin but without inherent and imputed righteousness which is as abominable as the former and contrary to your allegation Rom. 5.16 p. 6â— 3. But if the best be made of them they are more then innocent d) Isa 44.3 for God hath promised to powr his spirit on the believers
seed and his blessing on their off-spring And he declares e) Isa 65.23 Psal 37.26 their off-spring are blessed and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them f) Mat. 19.14 c These and the like things are not said of the children of unbelievers Therefore some difference sure 4. Yet no children are innocent absolutely but comparitatively as David was if his prayer was heard Psa 19.13 So I shall be innocent from the GREAT transgresion and Abner and Amasa were not without sins yet their blood is termed innocent blood g) 1 Kin. 2.31 32. so those children in Psal 106. were innocent as to actuall sin and in respect of those that murdered them but not free from originall sin nor spotlesse before God For had they been altogether without sin they could not have dyed Joh. 14.3.4 Psal 51.5 Rom. 5.12 14 18. and 6.23 Ephes 2 3 I say God in equity could not take away their lives if they were simply without all sin or else God iâ— cruelâ— in punishing as the places you bring seem to prove which is prodigious blasphemy 5 How is Scripture abused how impertinent is your proof man must not destroy the innocent Exod. 23 7. Prov 6.16 17. Therefore God will not Our Divines hold that God by his perogative may h) Joh. 9.12 with 2â— 3 annihilate an innocent person yea lay what evills he please as on Christ who in himself was every way innocent without any wrong to the creature and were not the Sodomites and their children i) Josh â— 24 Achan and his children punished and that without any injustice by the Lord and how many children were drowned in Noah's deluge 6. To return to Psalm 106. Those children were children of persons externally in Covenant though wicked yet not dis-covenanted for after severe corrections he is said to remember his covenant for them verse 45. 7. What you say in the rest of this p. is not at all pertinent to this Argument and therefore I passe the same by only with soâ—â—e brief animadversions in the generall we have here 〈◊〉 bundl of Arminianism or refined Pelagianism First a tacite denying or at least a sleighting k) See c. 10. ans to the 7. 〈◊〉 qu. of originall sin contrary to Scripture and experience Secondly none shall be condemned for Adam's transgression contrary to Rom. 3.23 with 5.18 19 Thirdly originall sin doth not deserve eternall death but onely temporal what other construction can be made of your words though they must all dye for Adam's transgression yet c. contrary to Rom 6.23 Fourthly In such little babes there is no Law contrary to Rom. 7.1 with 5 12. Fifthly no transgression can be imputed to them how then do they dye as you confesse for Adam's sin with a pitifull contradiction is this Sixthly None shall be judged according to originall sin contrary to Rev. 20.12 SMALL and great stood before God who were judged according to their works And if Adams transgression be every mans work save Christ's then Infants shall be judged accordingly or if for the effect then much more for the cause which is as bad if not worse you harp on the word DONE in 1 Cor. 5.10 I find no such thing in that Scripture when you correct your quotation you shall have a solution In the mean time it looks very suspitiously when the creature is more mercifull then the Creator as the pitifull Arminians seem to bee if you would take that advice you give to M. B. c. viz. Seriously consult Scripture your wonder would not bee for nine days but I hasten to your next p. SECT 3. H. H. p. 61. God hath hath one way to save men and women and another to save Infants as Rom. 5.18 whence I conclude that Infants which fell in Adam without any actuall sin or knowledge of Adam's transgression even so they dying in their Infancy c. are saved by virtue of Christ's death without any actuall faith or knowledge of Christs obedience or else it is not EVEN SO as Rom. 5.18 saith Reply 1. So then you positively assert that all Infants dying in their Infancy c. are saved by Christ c. Rom. 5.18 But 1. Here is no expresse mention made of Infants or their fall in Adam or any actuall sin or of knowledge of Adam's transgression or of their salvation by Christ's death or of their actuall faith or knowledge of Christ's obedience Here therefore is no plain proof for your assertion All the particulars fore-named are unwritten traditions additions to the Scripture take heed lest those plagues you would scare others with so often become your own portion 2. The word ALL must be taken largely or restrictively not the former For then all men women and children within and without the Church shall be saved for justification of life upon all men implies so much Now it 's impossible that those who are truly justified l) Rom. 8.30 32 34. c. should fall short of glorification If you mean as your words imply that all in their Infancy were justified though after by sinning they may perish that is repugnant to the fore-named Scripture nor restrictively For neither the woâ—d nor context admit such an exception Indeed there is a kind of universality of those that are partakers of justification of life i. e. All they that receive abundance of grace c. verse 17. i. e. All the Elect Christ's sheep regenerate and sanctified ones But where is it proved that all Infants even of Heathens so dying are such Nay it 's denyed by you 3 How can you satisfie your self with this one Scripture from whence you draw no Argument but this else it is not even so as Rom. 5.18 saith i. e. either your opinion is true or that Scripture is false But as you know that comparisons do not run on four seet so you will not yield to many Scriptures with Arguments deduced from them though never so clearly and strongly for the proof of Infant Baptism Is this impartiall dealing will you have Infants even of Heathens saved here by consequence And shall not â—e have Infants even of Christians baptized by consequence from Mat. chap. 28. verse 19. 4. I have heard of one that held universall Redemption of all from originall sin and that therefore Infants even of Heathens while such are in God's favour which I think is your opinion I am sure it is of some of your Proselytes in these parts and thence concluded that such Infants were to be baptized if parents would permit and if the Antecedent be granted which you do the consequent cannot be denyed by any but by him that absurdly did and will deny the conclusion For who can deny the seal of Redemption to them who are acknowledged to have interest in Redemption by Christ's blood 5. I will not determine what the Lord may do by prerogative neither must I believe or assert for a truth any more then his Word
and condemn him of weakness therein but I have no reason to do so to M. Baxter SECT 3. H. H. It 's enough saith M. Baxter p. 23. to make them Disciples that they are devoted to learning if they live c. So that he would prove them Disciples or Scholars first and have them taught afterwards strange doctrine and unheard of Divinity Reply 1. You leave out M. Baxter's first answer viz. They can partake of the protection and provision of their Master as the children of those the Israelites bought and enjoy the priviledges of the Family and School and bee under his charge and Dominion and that is enough to make them capable of being his Disciples This is not the first time you abuse M. Baxter and your Reader 2. You are like those mentioned even now Act. 17.18 19. no matter how strange his doctrine be if true 3. I think it is neither strange Doctrine nor unheard of Divinity to call the Jewish Infants Moses Disciples Jo. 9.28 and so Christs to whom Moses was subordinate as M. Baxter p. 22. which you cunningly pass by And were not the Twelve first Disciples and Paul also and taught afterwards Act. 9. Secondly you bewray your ignorance of the Scriptures which you charge on M B. and M. H. c. very insolently SECT 4. H. H. p. 74. But M. B. stoutly backs it with a learned Argument Is it not common to call the whole Nation of Turks Mahometans old and young and why not then our selves and children Disciples of Christ As the man that hired a Philosopher to teach him and his children were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher Answer But is this M. Baxters plain Scripture proof I admire that a man professing so much seriousness c. p. 2. should resolve to make the Apostles words true of himself 2 Tim. 4.3 4. c. Reply 1. You told us a story of Dr. Story p. 55 56. may not M. Baxter say Is this M. Haggar's plain Scripture proof that he tells us of in the title of his Book Physician heal thy self 2. You need not admire to bee sure not much admire at this story as you call it It 's brought rather for illustration then for probation 3. I rather much more admire that you who profess so much purity should bespatter him with so much impure language as wickednesse folly blasphemy c. with which your book is stuff'd SECT 5. H. H. If I should grant that little children as soon as they go to School are Scholars yet are they then fit to learn the things of God Jo. 3 12. Reply 1. M. B. tells you p. 14. That believers Infants are Disciples relatively long before they actually learn to which you say nothing 2. When they begin to learn their letters g) Prov. 22.6 Eph. 6.4 2 Tim. 3.15 wee are with the soonest to teach them the things of God 3. Though they may not be fit to learn the things of God yet it 's fit we should teach them even grown persons within our charge may and must be taught though by reason of their ignorance sottishness and dulness they are unfit to learn 4. What grosse mis-application of Scripture have wee here again But it 's your guise to apply that to Infants which is spoken to adult SECT 6. H. H. p. 75. He is a man voyd of reason that sends his child to School before it can speak or understand yet M. B. affirms such to be Christ's Disciples and would have them sent to Christ's School But the comparison should be thus As little children when first they go to school to learn their letters are called mens Disciples so those babes in Christ 1 Joh. 5.12 the first day they go to Christ's School to learn the Principles c. Heb. 6.1 are Christ's Disciples or as we call all the Turnks old and young that are born of the flesh Mahometans so all born of the Spirit Christians i. e. such as are spoken of 1 Joh. 2.12 13. with 5.21 As for M. Baxter's man that heard the Philosopher I passe it over as a cunning devised Fable c. Reply 1. If M. B. affirm such to be Christ's Scholars how can you for shame say he would have them sent to Christs School their being Scholars presupposeth a sending 2. You set up again a man of straw and then fight with it Valiantly done Comparisons you know do not run on all four Here is the piety and prudence of Christ to count and own them who cannot speak or understand his Scholars belonging to him the Master of the Church Mar. 9.41 3. Why do you say they that are born again c. are Christians and not Disciples Are not all Christians Disciples Acts 11.26 Now if some Infants are born again by the Spirit into the kingdom of Christ they must be Christians or Disciples especially by your former Doctrine viz. Dying in Infancy they are saved by Christ Are any saved by Christ but such as are sanctified born again Disciples Here you plainly yield the cause 4. If that concerning the hired Philosopher be a story how is it a Fable This cunning devised answer of yours is not worthy of a reply SECT 7. H. H. p. 76. Mothers say M. Baxter can teach their children partly by action and gesture and partly by voice c. And me thinks you should not make an Infant less teachable then some bruits But nurses will tell you more in this then I can Answer Oh excellent Divinity and plain scripture-proof whence it follows that Nurses are better Divines then M. B. 2. That some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples I am sure that his words imply noless Therefore his answer to M. T. for want of a better may be more fitly applied to him then to M. T. viz. Oh what cause have we c. m) M Baxter's plain Scripture p. 19. Reply 1. I have given the Reader the sum of this 76 p. leaving the bibble-babble to your self and silly Proselytes 2. Your arguing is so â—idicâ—lous that I may justly cry out Oh excellent Divinity and plain Scripture-proof promised in your title page For Nurses can tell better then I saith M. Baxter how teachable Infants are Therefore you infer Nurses are better Divines then M. Baxter which is just like this Banks can tell you how teachable his horse was and an Huntsman how teachable his doggs are Therefore Banks an Huntsman are better Divines then M. Haggar Or if those please you not a Black-Smith or a Butcher can tell you how teachable their Apprentices are Therefore a Black-Smith or a Butcher are better Divines then M. Haggar Again M. Baxter saith ye should not me thinks make a child less teachable then some bruits you infer here and you are SURE his words imply no less that some bruits are capable of being Christ's Disciples I deny your Major or consequences viz. If Infants are not less teachable then some bruit beasts then some bruits
are not Church-members because they are not branches how poorly God knows It should not seem strange to you that M. Baxter proves them Disciples because they are servants specially if you consider to foyle you with your own weapon that Scripture no where calls them expresly Church-members though we believe they are but doth expresly call them Disciples * I. G. Catab p 165. Sidenh exercit p. 126. here and servants too in the place quoted by M. Baxter 3. By your Divinity I may not call Paul a Disciple of Christ whom he calleth a servant and his servant too For you say even in persons wee must not call them Disciples of Christ whom God calleth servants 4. If you had not been wilfully blind M. Baxter prevented this cavill p. 20 which I shall improve Moses and Nebuchadnezzar are called the servants of God but not on the same account Isa 42.1 with Rev. 1.1 Christ and John are called God's servants but not in the same sense when their use and sufferings were so unlike Psal 119.89 90. The Heavens and believers are called God's servants but not in the same sence when their actings do so broadly differ So Nebuchadnezzar and the Churches children He in respect of the work to which he was designed and they in respect of the state wherein they were invested Nebuchadnezzar was never brought out of Egypt nor to have any benefit of the year of Jubilee as is said of these children with their parents Levit. 25.41 42. SECT 11. H. H. p. 79. Another Argument of M. Baxters p 21. If Infants be capable of being Christ's Subjects then of being Christ's Disciples Answer A learned Argument All the children in this Nation are capable of being Subjects in this Commnon-wealth Ergo of being Vniversity-Scholars Reply 1. An unlearned answer There is a capability remote and immediate Now remotely all Infants here are capable of being University-Scholars but not immediately they must first be Country-Scholars before they are University-Scholars An Infant is capable of being an Abecedarian by propinque-power but a stone c. is not either by a propinque or remote power 2. You seem to insinuate that no child is capable of being a Subject in this Common-wealth what truth is in M. B. or yours you leave to the wise to judge your Logick will not save a whore from the gallows who hath been arraigned or condemned for murdering her Bastard SECT 12. H. H. His third Argument is p. 23. Christ would have some children received as Dâ—sciples Loâ— 2 47 48 Mar. 19.5 Mark 9.41 Now what the two first Soriâ—â—ures are to the purpose I leave to all that can read and understant English to judge If the Printer have done him wrong I have not neither is there any in his Erraâ—â—'s and truly I dare be no Interpreter of his meaning withoâ—â— his words I shall therefore onely speak to that in Mark c. Reply 1. What a cunning devised Fable have wâ—here to mis-cite Mr. Baxter's two hâ—d Scripturâ—s and to write them out at large that Mr Baxter might be rendered odious or at least inexpert in the Word of righteousness whâ—n in the very page cited they are Luke 9 and Mat. 18. and for the first you confess you after â—od Luke 9. quoted in that page Would not you think it dis-ingeâ—â—ty to be so dealt with If I should write out in words at length Luke 14.10 so it 's cited by you pag. 42. and then make such a flam as you do What a great crie is here and no Wooll Where were your eiâ—s or your mind rather If seems after you had put on your Spectacies you could see better and read English you seek for a â—not in a Rush SECT 13. H. H. p. 80. I Answer 1. The word Disciple is not in the Text c. 2ly in Mark 9.41 42. It 's evident he spake to the Twelve and of actual believers 3ly To that in Luke 9. ver 48. the Lord Christ himself answers Mat. 18.1 2 3 4 5 6. at large Reply 1. No more is Church-member or visible Saints in all or any one of those 13 Texts which you produce from pag. 63. to 73 and from whence you have drawn 13 doughty Arguments to shew that such Infants as wee baptize cannot be Church-members neither doth Church-membership do them any good but the contrary pag. 63 your answer here might have served for our Reply there But I have replied punctually to every Scripture and Argument there And what if the word Disciple be not expresly found in one or two of these texts yet in Mat. 18.5 which Mr. Baxter had rightly and truly cited for all your audacious out-facing the matter he speaks of receiving one such little child in my name what 's that Mark 9.41 Because ye belong to Christ or as it is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 9.41 because ye are Christs and what are both these but in the name of a Disciple Mat. 10.42 Now to receive in Christ's name and as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christ's language is all one Much more is said in the places quoted by you by Mr. B. which you thought a piece of wisdom to pass by because you could not answer 2. To that in Mark I might say as you a little before The word actual Believers is not to be found in the text Therefore by your divinity it is not Evident that he speaks of Actual Believers or else some things are evident which are not expresly mentioned in Scripture And what though Christians Infants are not actual believers it 's enough if they be habitual believers and then Christ speaks of them But because you utterly deny that any Infants are actuall Believers and challenge any to prove it by Scripture if they can I shall try your strength by these few Arguments though I do not positively assert it 1. David saith God did makeâ—him hope when he was on his mothers breasts Psal 22.9 Now to hope and to believe are all one or very nigh of kin In him shall the Gentiles trust or hope Rom. 15.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. You have taught me that justification of life belongs to Infants pag. 61. out of Rom. 5.18 Now the Scripture knows no justification of life without actual faith even in that Chap. it 's said Rom. 5.1 we are justified by faith What is that but actual faith as appears from the illative particle Therefore being the conclusion of an Argument drawn from a famous example of justification viz. Abraham's which was without doubt by actual faith you dare not deny it 's so evident Gen. 15. with Rom. 4. 3 ly John Baptist in his mothers womb leapt for joy Luk. 1.41 44. which was no natural but a spiritual motion as hath been said now joy is the joy of faith Rom. 15.33 with Phil. 1.25 True you say faith comes by hearing Rom. 10.17 i.e. Ordinarily But though God binds us to the means yet he
according to the mind of Christ was and is onely by Ministeriall teaching Secondly That none but such so discipled were or are to be baptized But on the contrary are not examples obvious in Scripture As the thief on the Crosse who was a Disciple yet not Discipled by Ministeriall preaching the Gospel whom yet you acknowledge to be in a saving condition p. 25 26. and baptized in will though not in deed and to omit many instances Paul was a Disciple o) Acts 9.22 yet not by the preaching of the Gospell and was baptized too and I trow both according to the mind of Christ to say nothing of p) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 2. Origens and Austins q) Confess l. 8. 〈◊〉 12. Discipleship the one by his parents education the other by a Voice from Heaven 5. For your confession c. It had been more ingenuity to have confessed your own errours with which your book is stuffed as may appear by this reply or your impudence with a witness in denying that which you cannot but know to be the custom of the Churches of God for more then a 1000 years See your p. 3. or your uncharitableness in disowning them for the Churches of God who have owned Infant-baptism What your custom is I matter not you shall be none of my presidents though God may make you an example and then I shall remember you as I do Å¿) Luk 17.32 Lot's wife SECT 8. H. H. p. 91. But to retort M. Baxter's Argument this Doctrine of M. Baxters and the rest of the Priests of England viz. That all Children should be Baptized in their None-age according to their practice doth turn the Baptisme of Christ which is to baptize men and women when they believe quite out of the Churches of the saints therefore c. This his Sword is turned with the edg against himself Reply 1. In generall you should have given no more then his own you have made so little use of the Argumenâ— that you deserve to pay no interest but how have you put the sheep in Wolves clothing and besmeered M. Baxter's modest and meek expression with the excrements of your own passion 2. In particular 1. You call us Priests in derision you shew your selfe to be the Son of Hagar by your scoffing that Nick-name neither gaines you not loses us any thing Secondly we do not say all children but the children of believeing parents are to be baptized And those I trow are not All children s) Isa 28.15 Thus you make lies your refuge and under falsehood have you hid your self Thirdly you say that our Doctrine turns Christ's Baptism out of the Church because the baptizing of men and women when they believe is the baptisme of Christ This is bâ—t a pittifull begging of the Question and yet without Question both the Baptism of Infants of the other are consistent It 's well known that many Jewes Heathens converted to the Faith have been Baptized by us as well as the Infants of believeing Parents Thus indeed the edge of M. Baxter's Sword is so turned that for very bluntnesse it hath not so much as pierced the skin SECT 9. H. H. Same p. His Sixth Argument is against the mannes of Baptizing by Dipping as being a branch of the Sixth Commandement because it doth ordinarily tend to the overthrow of man's health and lives therefore no Ordinance of God but an hainous sinne c. Answer In order First Observe M. Baxter useth not one Scripture the ground of faith to prove it murder c. he hath used many vain words which prove nothing c. Reply 1. Here is a fair promise of aningenuous proceeding t) Quind dignum tanto seret hic promissor hiatu partuturiunt montes nasceturridicuâ—is mus Horat but not a suitable performing seeing folly marches in the Van rather let it be observed that you suffer the ground and foundation of your practice to be undermined and razed and yet you make no stir but what a great bussle do you make when M. Baxter comes to the Manner This is Lapwing if not Jesuite-like to cry loudest when furthest from the Nest 2. You will not be kept from your old custom of Fly-blowing mens writings with your corrupt breath M. Baxter doth not exhort the Magistrates p. 134. and 136. to destroy the Anabaptists as well as High-way murderers M. Baxter and I have so much charity u) Sic Diligendisunt homines ut non diliguntur eorum errores Prosp for you and yet Zeal for the truth that we would have noâ— your persons but your erroneous practises destroyed if so be the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5.5 3. It was needless for M.B. to bring senseless for you to demand Scripture for the proving of usual dipping to be murder Hath not God made us men as well as Christians and given us reason as well as Religion Is there not a morall as well as a divine Faith And is there an incompossibility of both these Cannot we act the one but we must decline the other If therefore M. Baxter had proved dipping to be murder by a morall-convincing Argument I might have believed him and yet made the word of God the ground of my Faith as it is granted to be yet 4. Who did ever produce Scripture-testimonies for the proof of a bond Or Gospel-evidence for title to Land Hath the Grand Jury Scripture for to prove matter of fact e. g. Murder yet the bill is found and the murder justly condemned I have heard it considently affirmed that Mr. Haggar hath been married to two wives which are both yet living Now unless he can bring Scripture to prove the contrary by his own Logick none is bound to believe him Let him therefore take heed of such arguing 5. But Mr. B. proves it by Scripture If the sixth commandement be the word of God which forbids the ordinary use of any thing which tendeth directly to overthrow health and life how else can you prove the tortures inflicted on the primitive Christians to be murder but by such a Medium as this is unless it be your opinion That their tormenters were no murderers Though the tormented were indeed Martyrs Nay you your self allow the lighting of one candle by another v) Gospell worship no wrok for Infants p. 38. So the first be lightted by the fire of of the Altar i. e. The pure word of God You see Mr. B. doth so it is then a Scripture-argument by your own grant So that you might well have forborn that peremptory charge that Mr. Baxters proof is by affirming from out of his own mouth only c. 5. The Reader may do well to observe your First without a Second only when you cannot answer then you fall to your old haunt to cavill c. SECT 10. H. H. p. 92. But he proceeds I dare not say that in Cities like London and
and been at the baptizing of many hundreds if not a thousand and never saw any baptized naked c. Reply 1. Whither will not malice hu-cry a man rather then Mr. B. and his party shall go without a spot you will bespatter Christianity it self If Christians intelligence is not to be credited whom shal we admit into our Creed May not the wicked say Christians have little grace they tell lyes c. and thus you bring an Odium on n) Act. 11.26 that antient and honourable Name Such an one Polycarp confessed himself to bee o) Liberò audi Christianus si◠Euseb Eccl. Hyst l. 4. c. 15. such an one you would be taken to be It is is an ill bird that defiles his own nest 2. Here is a bitter censure past it is for want of grace that they tell these if they be lyes An ingenious charity would have imputed it rather to ignorance or information which may occasion a lye to fall sometimes from the best not to want of grace c. 3. Mr. B. must have his share as well as the Christians they lye and he is willing to believe them Thus he taxes his circumspection as if he entertained reports without consideration when all who know that precious servant of God know he is not credulous But Mr. Haggar if your will had no◠committed a rape upon your understanding you had never believed that you had found a Font in Jerem. 2.13 or adeferring of baptism till believing in Mark 16. verse 16. Or the Eunuch over head and ears in the water Act. 8.37 But you was willing to have it so p) Quod v◠lumus facile-credimus Therefore you believed it was so 4. You produce your self as a witness to prove the other lyars This is worse then ask my fellow If I bee a thief you are a party and therefore not fit to be a witness you may flye to the Lawers maxime None is bound to accuse himself 5. What arrogancy is here you must be believed against M. Baxters Christians why may you not have as lit-grace and fear of God and tell a lye as well as they sanctity and truth are not annexed to your Jordan Your single testimony against all theirs shall then be valid when you are infallible In the Interim this speaks you a Pharisee in that you count them Publicans 6. But waving these things I enter a caveat against your evidence It is neither full nor pertinent to the interrogatory you speak to the naked Dipping but not to NEXT TO NAKED So that M. Baxter's Argument stands still in force as hee proves p. 137. And if the beholding men and women in their shirts c. be not a coasting upon incivility I have lost my understanding Surely Christ never plac'd his Ordinance so near iniquity who bids us abstain from all appearance of evill 1 Thes 5. ver 22. 7. If they who are baptized are Dipp'd in their cloaths as there is no Scripture for so doing so it 's against your principle For to Dip in your sense is to plunge a person over head and ears in water so as immediately to be wet but he that is Dipp'd in his cloaths is not immediately wet all over For his cloaths are Dipp'd primarily and immediately hee secondarily and mediately his cloaths by the water he by his cloaths Thus you who ordained a Cheese-factor to be a publick preacher may make a cheese-clout a Dipper and thus you have met with a Scylla and Charibdis in the meer of Ellesmer whether you Dip naked or next to naked SECT 29. H. H. same p. But suppose some men have been baptized naked among men that is no more offensive then bathing in the water Nay Peter was naked Joh. 21.7 Reply 1. Never stand mincing the matter with a SUPPOSE but say men and women may be baptized naked speak out and tell us that your naked dipping succeeds the Roman Lupercatia the Indian Gymnosophists would blush at this 2. You tell us of naked Peter but do not tell us the naked truth Peter was not naked in your sense the word somtimes signifies to be without any bodily covering Gen. 2.25 Secondly poor and mean clothing Job 22.6 Mat. 25 36. The poor members of Christ are said to bee naked as well as Peter and I do not think whatsoever you do that they were Adamites Thirdly them who have layd aside their upper garment as Saul and the Prophets 1 Sam. 19.24 Isa 20.2 Thus Peter was naked for neither his calling as a Fisher doth necessarily imply that he was simply without covering neither doth the modesty of a man much less the gravity of an Apostle permit it nor doth it suit with the custom of the Jews who was wont to wear a loose upper garment which being put off it was usuall to say they were naked Thus your answer is pure Quakerism 3. No truly pious or morally honest man but will judg it an immodest act for men to go stark naked in your sense There are Pudenda naturae which God and nature would have covered and to discover them is immodesty unless upon inevitable necessity why else did the sons of Noah go backward with a mantle to cover their Fathers nakedness Gen. 9.22 23. 4. If you will have your own saying viz. It is not an immodest thing for men to be naked together yet sure it is for men and women such mix'd Dipping is no more commendable then mix'd dancing Nay worse of the two 5. Whether M. Baxter will allow that men may go into the water to bath them yet not sin let those who have read the former answer judge If men may why may not women consider that sad story of David and Bathsheba 2 Sam. 11.2.4 6. You bewray the subtilty of the Serpent you mention bathing but intend baptizing That is at the top like the corn spread over the well but this like the scouts lyes at the bottom 1 Sam. 17.19 This water-man looks one way and rowes another But if it were granted it is not immodest for men to bath together yet it 's indecent for them to be baptized naked For is there no difference between bathing and baptizing Where is the honour of the Ordinance Is that comly and lawful in Sacramentals which is usuall in morals e. g. At our Tables we laugh c. may we therefore do so at the Lord's Table Eccl. 10.16 Secondly doth it not trench upon the purity of the Lord Jesus that he should institute a standing Ordinance in his Church that is very disputable whether it be a wickedness or not What only a pair of shears between a Gospel-Sacrament and a grievous sin and for all your Sophistry you cannot tell which is the finer end I am sure you do not plainly determine it Thirdly doth not this tax Christ of inconsideration that Christ should institute an Ordinance at the administration of which all believers may not be present men not see women nor women see men Dipped
the dust you have raised and noise you have made can neither hide from him nor plunder him off SECT 2. H. H. same p. What have you to do to call Christ Lord and yet will not do the things which he saith Luk. 6.46 Which is to preach the Gospell to all and baptize them that believe and gladly receive it Mark 16.15 16. with 2.41 8.12 This Gold will endure the fire when your Rantizing babes will perish Though you plead for cozening poor Children in their Cradles and when you have done you have made them seven times harder to be converted to the Faith of the Gospel then they were before Reply 1. There is no 41 verse in Mark. 2. nor any thing to your purpose in Mark 8.12 I suppose the Printer hath abused you for Acts 2.41 and 8.12 But those and the other Scriptures have been Answered before though you please your self in singing the Cuckow 's song 2. All verily is not Gold that glisters your Gold you brag of proves but gilded brasse Infant-Baptism will last when your mode shall vanish like smoke in the air 3. It 's well known and may be spoken to God's glory that many after Infant-Baptism and still owning it have been converted from their natural and sinfull estate to the obedience of the Faith Now if Infants before your Baptizing were seven times more easie to be converted then after what is become of all your noise concerning Infants capacity to repent and believe Is your mind changed now Are you indeed perswaded that Infants unbaptized are seven times easier to bee converted to the Faith then after Baptism But your rage carries you on to rail on us not without abuse of Scripture in most of your 122. page which is unworthy of any other answer but silence and patience SECT 3. H. H. pag. 122. We are not to be blamed if we declare nothing but the Word of God 2 Tim. 4.2 and if we have answered in eighteen sheets c. Reply 1. To the first I need say little True if you have such a Call as Paul and Timothy had or any just call warranted by the World to preach and declare God's Word but you have not yet proved that you have any such call Now then if you preach before you are sent and run without Commission the speaking of some truths will not justifie you Sathan spake sometime truth and that according to God's Word but having no Call had no thanks nor was justified therein Mat. 4.6 8.29 Acts 16.17 18. And his slaves have taken upon them to imitate the Apostles of Christ in these things whereto they had no call Acts 19.13 14 15 16. 2 Cor. 11.13 14. 2. How punctually you keep to the Word of God in your teaching and writing I hope appears by this time Papism Arâ—inianism Socinianism c. with which your book is more then sprinkled are not parts of the word of God 3. I do not marvel at your briefness in answering when you promise to answer all and indeed answer nothing Besides Tares are sooner sowen then gathered up and the ground rid of them poison is sooner prepared and devoured then the body cleansed of it An hundred houses are sooner burnt then one built yet I have transcribed you and replied to you SECT 4. H. H. p. 133. It is said wee are they that subvert whole housholds but I answer as Elijah did Ahab 1 King 18.18 We do not subvert whole Housholds for we baptize none but those that believe according to Mark 16.15 16. Acts 8.12 37. But it 's you Mr. C. that subverts whole housholds when you baptize children and all for lucres sake c. Reply Sir it 's not your Nay will serve when your practice proclaims the contrary neither can you shew any call from God to do what you do as Eliah could shew for what he did and therefore you still abuse Scripture What warrant have you for re-baptizing those that have been baptized Christ's command and his Apostles practice was to baptize Jews and Gentiles of ripe years that had until that time been Jews and Gentiles your pretending that warrant is confessing that whom you baptize are Jews or Gentiles and if you make them that were professed Christians to become Jews and Gentiles that you may baptize them after the example of the Apostles you subvert persons families and countries to purpose CHAP. XVII Of Humane Learning in a Minister of Christ SECT 1. H. H. pag. 123. I shall now shew the reasons of our dissenting from the Church of England and all other Churches which stand upon these four pillars viz. 1. Humane Learning for take away that which you had at Cambridge or Oxford and you have no Ministry but all men may preach as well as you nay I might say better Reply 1. It is a notorious untruth confidently enough asserted by you without the least colour of proof that the Church of England is built on the four pillars mentioned by you These are of your own framing and daubed with untempered mortar No Sir it 's built on that Rock against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Mat. 16.18 and on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Ephesians 2. ver 20. 2. If that we had at Cambridge or Oxford were taken away it doth not follow that we have no Ministry How many pretious Ministers are there in the Church of England eminent for piety and learning who never were matriculated in Cambridge or Oxford God having blest their private studies in the Country with the attainment of excellent abilities Violets may be found and gathered in the Field as well as in the Garden 3. It 's a Paradox that all men may preach as well as we * Multi imperitorum magistri sueâ—int priusâ—uam suerint doctorum discipulâ— Wittenberg Conles Artic. 20. suppose University Learning were taken away for herein you dissent from your own Church if a Church which hath been of this mind hitherto that none but gifted men may preach mistaking that Scripture * Ye may all prophesie Unless you mean that Women and Infants may preach for they are comprehended in those terms All men But Infants cannot speak you often say and Women may not 1 Cor. 14.34 as hath been shewed before 4. It 's worse to say you might say better x) Non sacile de Artibus rectè jâ—dicat qui Artes ignorat Cyprian 1 King 12.31 You know in the Fable who judged that the Cuckow â—ung better then the Nightingale It was Jeroboams sin that hee made Priests of the lowest of the people and it is your sin and shame to make Preachers of Mechanick and unlearned men Alas we would have learned Lawyers for our estates The Apostle saith who is sufficient for these things 2 Cor. 2 16. but H. H. saith who is not sufficient and learned Physicians for our bodies and not learned Ministers for our souls 5. Though