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
p. You say Alas there are far better grounds which they are not aware of Answ That is it may be because you baptize them so soon if you would let them alone till they are men and women before you baptize them as you have example in Scripture they might receive Baptisme on better grounds Reply 1. Your interpretation with a may be is but a meer conjecture a fancy of your own head and worthy of no better a reply 2. Though we distinguish between men and women and children in our language yet the Scripture doth not always Cain a child is called a man Gen. 4.1 and an Infant upon the birth is also called in the New Testament a man John 16.21 where the same word is used which includes both man and woman as you confess p. 68. Howsoever your expression is as improper as your advice is impertinent viz. If you would let them alone till they are men and women I know not your meaning well unless you would have every Infant an Hermaphrodite viz. a man and woman 3. You have brought no example in Scripture to justifie your practice for those who are said to be baptized in Scripture were not baptized before that we read of as you acknowledge we were p. 24. SECT 18. H. H. p. 36 and 37. In your seventh Position you confess some Divines have reasoned very weakly for Infant-baptism and used unfit Phrases and mis-applyed Scriptures and to thâ—se some have wrote three or four Books and easily answered and seemed to Triumph and yet the truth is not shaken but it may be all the best Arguments and plain Scriptures have never been answered Answ I desire to answer the plain Scriptures no way but by Faith and obedience by believing and doing them Therefore if you know of any that speaks of Infant-baptâ—sm bring them forth and I will be silent The first I see but as for your best Arguments you talk off I look upon them but as so many cunning devised Fables wherewith you lye in wait to deceive simple souls by speaking things you ought not for filthy Lucres sake Titus 1 14. Reply 1. The first part of your answer I cannot put into my Creed for if you desire why do you not endeavour you knâ—w who saith p The soul of the sluggard desireth and hath nothâ—ng Prov. 13.4 2. M. B. aâ—d others have brought forth plain Scripture for Infant-baptism and you in silence have passed by the most of them because it seems you could not answer them though you confesse you see them 3. The close of your answer if it be a sufficient answer then its an easie matter to answer any Argument though never so strong by mis-applying Scripture and scornfuâ—l terms And I must needs tell you of your rash and harsh judgment contrary to Mat. 7.1 Judge not c. and to Rom. 14.10 c. why dost thou judge thy brother c. And indeed this last part of your answer is the reason why I cannot believe your first SECT 19. H. H. p. 37. You say Position 8. One sound Argument is enough to prove any thing true Answ Then either the great number of yours in your book of plain Scriptures are not sound or else you need not to have brought so many by your own grant Reply 1. What you say of M. Baxters Arguments may be said of yours more truly viz. your twelve Arguments q) Foundation fâ—om p 63. to 73. from p. 73. to 87. against Infants Church-membership and your nine Arguments against Infants-discipleship c. which wil be found as weak as water and as unsound as rotten ground when I shall come to them 2. M. Baxter tells you in this 8 Position It is not number but weight that must carry it Therefore he resolved not to heap up many 3. It seems you take notice of the great number of M. Baxters Arguments and yet you dare not grapple with that huge hoast but only cull out one or two and that by snatching at a limb and away r) Tanquam Caenis ad Nilum Eras Adâ—g as you have done with M. Cook c. SECT 20. H. H. But you say What if all the Texts were put by save one were not that enough Answ Yes it s enough if you can shew us but one but I pray where is that one I cannot find it in all the book But it seems you are afraid that all should be put by save one Therefore you make this Apologie but I suppâ—se all will do you little goâ—d Reply 1. If you wipe your eyes you may see if you be not blind in M. Baxters Book more then one 2. I doubt you speak against your conscience How dare you say you cannot find one text for Infant-baptism in all M. Baxters Book when you seem to be more Eagle-eyed then others in seeing and finding as you think the Font in Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. 3. M. Baxters Apology is not made out of any such jealousie as you pretend as if he was afraid that all should be put by save one but out of a desire and endeavour to rectifie the ignorant in their fond conceits as he himself exprâ—sseth it which you have cunningly left out 4. I will accept of your grant and improve it in time convenient viz. If all should be put by but one it 's enough SECT 21. H. H. same p. You say Position 9. The former and present customes of the holy Saints and Churches should be of great weight with humble Christians Answ I grant it if they bee now according to the primitive pattern I am sure the custom of the Churches in the Apostles days was to baptize men and women when they believed c. Acts 2.41 8.12.36 37. 10.47 16.33.34 18.8 Therefore let this custom be of weight to your self and do not baptize little babes that cannot believe c. because Paul saith 1 Cor. 11.16 Reply 1. You condemn hereby all the Protestant Ministers of the French Churches who preach with their hats on their heads and yet they think they may do so without sin notwithstanding 1 Cor. 11.4.7 2. Are not you self-condemned who as I am informed have broken bread on the second day of the week when the primitive Disciples Å¿) Act. 20.7 did it on the Lord's day viz. the first day of the week as you grant p. 13. nay Expositors on that place collect they did break bread once a week viz. on the day aforesaid you once a month if so oft 3. Those Scriptures so often repeated by you have been answered already I tell you again That practise is not binding to us but in the same or like condition Beside the primitive Christians had their Love-feasts when the Lord's Supper was administred and received as is plain out of Scripture s) see Diodat 1 Cor. 11.20.21 Jude 8.12 and it was their custome to salute one another with an holy kiss Do you not think it a piec of your Christian
Reply 1. In saying Christ is called a rock and Peter a stone Do you not more then insinuate that Christ is not a stone which is contrary to your own quotation Ephes 2.20 Christ himself being the chief corner-stone though I confess it is not the same word in the original d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay contrary to diverse oâ—her Scriptures where Christ is expresly called a stone e. gr Isa 28.16 Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a STONE Act. 4.11 This is the STONE which was set at nought by you builders Yea in the very place even now by you cited Psal 118.22 with Mat. 21.42 1 Pet. 2.4 To whom coming as unto a living STONE 2. Though I am far from believing that the Church is built on Peter in the Popish sense yet I may truly and safely hold that in some sense the Church is built on Peter for it 's plain that Peter was an Apostle and it 's as plain Ephes 2 20. We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles This is no whit helpful to the Papists nor hurtful to us 3. Admit the Church is not built upon Peter yet your reason is very weak because forsooth Peter is or is called a Stone Sure you had a mind to gratifie your dear mother the Church of Rome notwithstanding your loud cry as the Papists say The Learned give us better reasons To instance onely in one e) Chemn Har. mon cap. 24. Peter hath his name ab illa petra from that rock for two causes 1. Because notwithstanding Sathan's subtilty and his own infirmity Luke 22.31 32 he should adhere to that rock and be as a living stone built on him 2. Because by his Ministry and confession Mat. 16.18 Christ would build his Church on himself the true rock 4. If it be plain in Christs words f) Mat. 16.18 that the Saints ought to build on Christ the foundation then something may be plain by consequence which is not exprest in the text You are for consequences betimes SECT 3. H. H. pag. 2. And who that is a Christian knoweth not that the Church of Christ is built on the rock Christ Therefore David saith 2 Sam. 22.2 The Lord is my rock And Verse 47. Blessed be the God of the rock of my salvation c. all which I suppose will not be denied by any that own Christ Reply 1. You may do well to examine throughly whether your Church be built on the rock Christ 2. To say nothing that you do not cite the words of David as they are in our Bible specially verse 47. If every Christian knows that the Church of Christ is built on the rock Christ and none that own Christ will deny it then I suppose you will own me and the rest of my perswasion for Christians and owners of Christ who are neither ignorant of the one nor deniers of the other This is the best if not the onely piece of charity that is to be found in the Book SECT 4. H. H. But the main question is How the Saints may and ought to build on this rock Christ which is clearly answered by these following Scriptures Mat. 7.24 Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them I will liken him to a wise man that built his house upon a rock c. Therefore to build on the rock Christ is to hear the sayings and do them and the contrary likened to a foolish man c. lyable to danger and destruction Act. 3.22 23. with 2 Thes 1.8 9. 1 Joh. 2.4 Rev. 21.8 Reply 1. Let the Reader consider whether those words in Mat. admit not clearly a limitation to that Sermon preached by Christ in the Mount for it 's said ver 24. Whosoever heareth THESE sayings of mine and doth them not c. Ver. 26. Every one that heareth These sayings of mine c. In which Sermon Christ spake not one word of the nature or subject of Baptisme and so the design you drive at in alleging these words is quite spoiled 2. Admit the words be of a larger extent because it 's said Luke 6 47. Whosoeuer cometh to me and heareth my sayings indefinitely and doth them and Verse 49 He that heareth and doth not c. Yet this Scripture shews not how the Saints build on this rock as you pretend but who they are that build on him or build not on him 3. You write very rawly and indistinctly For certainly there are some temporary commands or sayings of Christ e. g. Mat 10.8 g) Hoc symbolum pro illotempore praeceptum quo certior ipsis esset divinae providentiae experientia ut reâ—ti Chrysost notavit Grot. Heal the sick cleanse the Lepers raise the dead cast out divels freely ye have received freely give Verse 9. Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses 10. Nor scrip for your journey neither two coats nor shoos nor yet staves c. Are they all fit to wear a fools coat who do not these commands in these times or do you take your self now obliged to that command Mat. 19.21 Go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor I have been alwaies of this mind that THAT was a command of Trial and not of Obedience unlesse it be when God requires it as in times of publick persecution Or are you bound to wash one anothers feet as Joh. 13.14 or salute one another with an holy kisse as Rom. 16.16 or anoint the sick with oyl Jam. 5.14 and many more which I could mention which neither you nor I do must therefore you and I be likened to foolish men nay be counted liars and be in danger of damnation By this time you may perceive what it is to write at random to shoot at rovers and talk so wildly For 4. What a bloody sentence is this to send to hell all Christians for more then a thousand years who have not been baptized after your mode For we read not of Anabaptists till within this three or four hundred years or thereabouts at most to my best observation CHAP. II. Concerning Christs Precept SECT 1. H. H. pag. 3. Mat. 28.18 19 20. with Mark 16.15 16. whence observe First that Christ commanded the Gospel to be preached to every creature or all nations which words we ought to hear and obey c. Reply 1. Are you bound indeed to obey this command Then you have obeyed it or not If not are not you found in the number of those whom Christ sharply reproves as you mention p. 2. who call him Lord Lord and yet do not the things he saith Luke 6.46 If you say yea I cannot believe you for since Judas h) Act. 1.25 by transgression fell from his Apostleship I cannot find you among the eleven i) Acts 1.13 Secondly but if this command is to be obeyed in the successors of the Apostles as Gospel-Ministers for the Apostles as such have no successors as is clear by the promise annexed
the originall Beza saith f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in very many copies it 's read unto Lydia so do others g) As the Syr. and old Latine translate it and for ought appears Lydia at that time might be in anothers house aswell as her own 2. What a silly Argument is this H. H. went into a Cheese-Factours house to ordain a Cheese-Factour to the office of a preaching Elder Therefore there were no Infants in his house So Paul and Silas might enter in Lydia's house admitting the translation to comfort the brethren and yet there might be Infants in her house and baptized too for it is said she and her houshold were baptized 3. If you mean that in Lydia's house there were no little babes that were capable of comfort it s granted but this hinders not but little babes are or may be capable of Baptism though not of comfort as the Jewish Infants were capable of circumcision though not of consolation but if you mean no little babes supposing there were such can be called brethren I do not marvail at it since you deny them to be Disciples Church-members Covenanters Saints and make no difference between the Infants of Pagans and of Christians I pray you Sir why may you not call them brethren and sisters if God be your Father whom the Lord saith g) Eaech 16.20 are born to him and whom he himself calleth his h) ver 21. children not only by creation but by Covenant which had been made with your Ancestors as appears out of that whole Chapter specially verse 60.62 4. You conclude there is no ground to believe from Scripture or reason that there were Infants in Lydia's house shall be answered by and by SECT 15. H. H. same p. The Jaylour was baptized with his houshold from whence some would draw the same Argument as from Lydia's 6 Instance and perswade us tâ—at there were children in his house but the Text is plain against it Acts 16.32 33 34. They spake the word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized he and all his straight ways and when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them and rejoyced believing in God with all his house Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God Reply 1. In the beginning of the sect you say the Jaylour was baptized with his houshold Look the Text i) Acts 16.13 It doth not say so here we have another addition of yours to advantage your cause no marvail that you add to mens writings when you are so bold to add to the Lords holy Scripture I grant it saith He and all His were baptized but not he was baptized with his houshold 2. It 's very observable the Text saith k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was baptized and all his i. e. hee and all that were OF him A most emphaticall phrase to denote his Children who are properly a mans own his naturall off-Spring when the Evangelist speaks of the Apostles preaching he names the Jaylours house in the largest acceptation They spake the word to him and to all that were l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his house but when he speaks of baptizing he changeth the terme and saith He and ALL HIS were baptized that you may be sure his children were baptized without doubt M. Haggars children his horse cannot be said to be his on the same account This phrase therefore in the Text must primarily be referred to his children 3 I expected here also an Argument in form to prove there were no children in the Jaylours house or if so that they were not baptized but in vain If yet you would prove your former thus Paul and Silas spake the word to all in his house but P. and S. did not speak the word to infants therefore no infants in his house The answer is in brief it 's a Sophistical Argument the conclusion should be therefore Infants were not at all in his house or all in his house were not infants which is granted but what is this to your purpose If you can cast it into a better mould it shall receive another answer Now to prove that no infants were baptized here though you say not so as in the place foregoing thus perhaps you may bee thought to reason The Jalour with all his house that was baptized believed in God but infants believed not Therefore The weakness of this Argument appears thus The children of Israel went up harnessed m) Exod. 13.14 out of the land of Egypt but the Jewish infants went not up harnessed Ergo 4. Before I leav you here one thing is to be observed For if it be plain that children were not in the Jaylours house As you would bear your reader in hand out of this Text Then something may be is plain by consequence which is not expresly written in so many words in Scripture SECT 16. H. H. Thus the Scripture in plain words as it saith the one that he and all his were baptized so also it saith he with all his house believed in God and therefore if M. Cook will evade the one by his learned Exposition in his 17. p. We may aswell evade the other and so conclude that none but he was baptized But consider the result of his labours when he hath laboured by all his wit and skill to pervert the Text yet he confesseth that the Syriack translation reads it thus and he exulted and all the children of his house even all of them in the faith of God I pray you let all rationall men consider what difference is between their all-rejoycing and believing God and exulting even all of them in the faith of God Reply 1. Let it be observed that to the foregoing Scriptures as holding forth commands or examples of baptizing Jews or Heathens newly converted to the faith n) Font uncovered from p. 7. to p. 23. there are given full and large answers both in general and particular shâ—wing that they make nothing for M. Haggars purpose and also to those Arguments which he after frames from the precept and practice of Christ and the incapacity of the subject as he would gather from these Scriptures yet he is pleased to take notice of two very short sentences passing by all the rest which I believe amount to an hundred times more then what he seems to answer to what other construction can be made thereof but that he finding himself unable to answer the rest thought good to pick out two or three lines which being singled from the rest he as he imagined might have more advantage against If this be sufficient it 's an easie matter to answer any books 2 For opening the sence of this Scripture o) Act.
2.13 14 15. Tit. 3.1 1 Tim. 2.1 2. Rom. 13. Is not the Scripture full of these things and yet you do call for Scriptures Surely you read so many other books that you forget to read the Scriptures c. Reply 1. Mr. Baxter said The new Testament speaks sparingly of an Oath before a Magistrate War Sabbath c. not as if he held it made no mention at all of them as you would make others believe For if it speak sparingly it 's not a total silence 2. It seems you are not gotten yet into the highest Forme of the old Anabaptists s) Sleid. Comment lib. 10. Docent non licere Christianis foâ—o contendere non gereâ—e Magistratum nonjusâ—urandum dicere non habe c quod proprium sed omnia debere esse omnibus communia who denied a Christian Magistracy 〈◊〉 Mr. Baxter saith and you make no Apologie for them and an Oath before a Magistrate concerning which that place in the Hebrews speaks nothing and the lawfulness of War too I am glad you are not so high flown but how soon you may be the Lord knows t) 2 Tim. 3.13 for evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse 3. I appeal to your own conscience whether Peter or Paul when they wrote spâ—ke of Christian Magistrates in the places cited by you though we are bound to those rules since the Lord hath blessed us with Christian Magigrates 4. You bring us no Scripture in the New Testament for the Sabbath as you did for the other particulars mentioned by Mr. Baxter I might therefore draw â—s â—igid a conclusion against you as you do in other things against Mr. Cook Mr. Baxter c. but I had rather be a pattern of Christian charity then of groundlesse jealousie In this then either you subscribe to the main of Mr. Baxter's position or else you have said enough as to the Sabbath in your p. 13. as peradventure you imagine 4. As for the charge upon Mr. B. that he forgets to read the Scripture in reading so many other books and your counsel to lay them aside c. they are both unworthy of any answer The one savoring of Pride and uncharitableness the other of ingratitude at least for the labors of the Learned Onely Sir before I part I pray tell me if you had never read any book but the English Bible how could you have empanell'd two Grand Juries v) Chap. 5. sect 14. 16. consisting the one of 22 and the other of 21 as hath been said to serve your ends or have confuted as you think Mr. C. Mr. B. M. Hall c. And to what purpose was your book written if we must give our selvs wholly to read and â—â—â—dy the Scriptureâ— SECT 6. H. H. In your Second Position you say That the great difficulties of a point is no proof that it is not truth and a thing is not therefore to be rejected as not of God because it is not easie to understand You affirm also that multitudes of silly Ignorants do the same In all which I shall not oppose you Reply 1. I am glad that Mr. Baxter and you can hi◠〈◊〉 in any thing Here it seems you can shake hands and 〈◊〉 friends It 's well if it be not like Joah's â—iss 2. Will not any sober judicious Christian conclude from hence without breach of charity that you are one of thâ—se â—â—â—y ignâ—rants whom Mr. Baxter 〈…〉 or four lines following For because 〈…〉 noâ— spoken plainly in your sense of Infant-baptism therefore you neither believe it nor practise it SECT 7. H. H. You say If a subtil Pagan should come amongst the people and dispute that your Scriptuâ—e is not the Word of God and that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God he would silence them more â—hen the Anabaptists can do Answer Here Mr. Baxter rather siâ—â—th with Pagans and Atheists that deny both God and Christ and the Holy Scriptures then with those which are faâ—sly called Anabaptists Though we honestly owâ— God and Christ and the Scriptures and desire to plead nothing else for our practice for which cause he crieth out against us in his â—enth Position calling us bruit beasts and nothing 〈◊〉 because we call to him for Scripture to prove his practice yet now hee makes as if Atheists and Pagans had more to say for themselvs then we All which I leave to God and the impartial Reader to judge Reply 1. How dare you say without blushing that you are fâ—â—sly called Anabaptists if you truly say that you are baptized again p. 24. If you speak truly in one place you speak falsly in the other u) Chap. 6. sect 3. but this hath been hinted before 2. If you did honestly own the Scriptures you would not so dishonestly wrest them as Jer. 2.12 13. p. 8. nor so dishonestly play with them as Rom. 3.12 Isa 45.5 Joh. 1.20 p. 29. to say nothing of the Scriptures abused by you in this very 32 p. and many other in your book 3. It 's an unchristian charge that Mr. B. rather sides with Atheists then Anabaptists now truly so called When he pities or reproves with pity a multitude of silly ignorant Christians who are less able to answer a subtil Pagan about the authority of the Scripture and Deity of Christ then an Anabaptist about rebaptizing Are not those more difficult points then these present under debate What siding is imaginable in this Must Christ be said to side * Mat. 11.10 21 22 23 24. with Tyre and Sidon and Sodom rather then with Corazin Bethsaida and Capernaum because he tells them it shall be more tollerable for the former then for the latter in the day of judgment what blasphemy would this be 4. It 's a notorious untruth that Mr. B. calls you bruit beasts onely because you call for Scripture to prove his practice No but for renouncing reason or evident consequences drawn from Scripture which you do in the present case All which I also leave to God and the impartial Reader to judge SECT 8. H. H. pag. 33. Mr. B. speaks great swelling words of vanity viz. He will hazard all the reputation of his understanding on it that there is ten times more to be said for Free-will then can be said against Infant baptism yea it is twenty times more difficult and yet you offer to dispute it with any man and must it therefore be true Answ 1. As for the reputation of your understanding I will not say what I judge what it 's worth 2. If you had said There is ten times more to be said for Free will then for Infant baptism you had hit it right Lastly whereas you say Free-will is such a difficult point I am not of your judgment in that For I believ it 's easie to them that will understand to know that no man in or of himself without God hath any free will or power to think or do that which
is not tied himself And that Christ should speak of such little ones as John writes to 1 Joh. 2.12 it 's but one of your Dictates But let us see how Christ answereth it as you say SECT 14. H. H. p. 81. It 's clear that Matth. and Luke speak of one and the same thing by comparing Luke 9 46. with Mat. 18.1 c. Therefore not Infants for age but for quality are meant i. e. humble and converted Christians as 1 Cor. 14.20.1 Pet. 2. ver 1. Reply 1. You that father your Solecisms and blasphemies on God p. 29 c. it 's no marvel you father your Gloss on Christ The mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken it It was usual with false Prophets to crie The Word of the Lord the mouth of the Lord c. How else could they deceive simple souls 2. If Christ speaks of actual Believers as you say and I have proved some Infants such then the mouth of the Lord himself hath spoken of little children of a few daies old to use your phrase Again compare the Evangelists together and it 's plain For Christ said Whosoever shall receive This Child viz. which he took and set by him in my name Luke 9.47 48. with Mat. 18.5 And whoso shall receive one Such little child in my name i. e. not onely this individual child but any one such for age c. 3. It is your frequent expression e. g. p. 4. Therefore none Such were baptized by John And pag. 64. No Such Infants in the Church at Jerusalem and pag. 65. to name no more None Such members of the Church at Corinth Surely you meant if any sense can be made of your words such for age Though I deny not but Christ might and did aim at a further document But let us hear your Reason for your Exposition SECT 15. H. H. If we understand that little Children are Believers in this place then whosoever is a believer and chastiseth his son betimes as Solomon adviseth it were better for him to have a mill-stone hanged about his neck c. For certain we are that whosoever correcteth his child will off end him which is an absurdity Reply 1. A ridiculous reason For you should have said Then it follows that whosoever chastiseth a believer c. not whosoever is a believer and chastneth c. else you say nothing to purpose but you were affraid to acknowledge little children believers 2. You set the Scripture together by the ears to bring in your absurdity It this Saint-like done Now mark He that offendeth his child sinneth this is plainly implied by Christ But he that correcteth his child sinneth not this is evident by Solomon Prov. 13 24. with 19.18 Therefore certain we are that he that correcteth his child doth not offend him 3. Your absurdity will not follow if you allow the old received distinction of an offence l) Scandalum datum vel acceptum or scandal given or taken The Pharisees were offended at Christ's saying Mat. 15 12. they took offence but Christ gave none and children when corrected may be offended though they are offended more waies then by whipping Children take offence but parents give none Thus I haue discovered your foolish carpings and cavills at Mr. Baxter's Arguments and the woful weakness of your own Now proceed to your second Argument SECT 16. H. H. p. 82. My second Argument is from Joh. 8.31 32. the summe whereof is this They that continue in Christ's words are Christ's Disciples indeed and shall know the truth and be made free by it But Infants cannot abide c. Therefore not disciples indeed The Third from Joh. 15.8 They that bring forth much fruit to God's glory are Christ's Disciples But little children cannot c. Therefore Reply 1. I have joined these two Arguments together for being the sams form they may receive the same answer 1. The Syllogisms themselvs are false for Form as a Fresh-man in Logick may see for they are both in the first Figure having the Assumptions Negative and the meanest rational man may discern thus They who have perfectly learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences are Scholars indeed But Abecedarians have not learned all the Liberal Arts and Sciences Therefore they are not Scholars indeed 2. Here is a Fallacie * Ignoratio Elenchi for our question is not of such Disciples who are truly Regenerate and shall be certainly fruitful c. which belongs onely to the invisible Church Wee never affirmed that all the children of believing parents are such But our Question is concerning those that are visible Disciples in his visible School c. And you cannot deny many may and must be owned disciples in the Visible Church who fall short of those visible characters as Judas Simon Magus Ananias and Sapphirae c. This your arguing then makes as much against the Primitive Apostolical Churches as against ours For they did not stay from owning people Disciples till they knew whether they would continue in the Word and bring forth much fruit to God's glory 3. The Assumptions in both taken universally are not true for Jacob Jeremy John the Baptist Timothy c. even from children abode in the truth and persevered to glorifie God And it 's not impossible now but in regard of the promise we may judge it usual in many Infants though not all This is enough For there was never any society or Church of Men-disciples on earth of which any man could say infallibly that all of them were truly sanctified SECT 17. H. H. p. 83. The fourth Argument put to the best is from Joh. 13.34 35. Christ's Disciples are known to all men by loving one another as Christ loved them But Infants cannot love one another so for they know not it 's their duty Therefore Reply 1. This is sick of the same disease with the two former For 1. It hath a Negative Assumption in the first Figure like this They that write in the Hebrew and Greek Languages are known to be Scholars But they that are in some womans Country-school cannot do so Therefore no Scholars 2. The Question is not of those true real internal Disciples taught of God to love one another with a supernatural love 1 Thes 4. for persons of any false Religion may love one another with a carnal and natural love for these shall not be known of all men till the day of judgment Mat. 25.31 32 c. But our Question is concerning visible Disciples who are to bee esteemed members in the School of the visible Church on earth and to have Baptism the sign of Admission into his School Will you take none to be Christ's Disciples and to be baptized untill they be known by all men to love one another as Christ loved his people If so you must cease to the worlds end from gathering Churches Was not Judas a Disciple of Christ and yet he had no true love to Christ or to his fellow-disciples 2.
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
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