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
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
who saith p) Exod. 20.7 He will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain whereof you are in an high degree guilty who to vent your own rage and malice blindly and boldly misapply the Scripture to others and neglect to examine your self by it though not a little concerned therein I cannot but think that word sounds in your ears Is thine eye evil because I am good Here is your envie mentioned by the Apostle 4. For charging Mr. Cook with perverse Disputing c. Do you think that your railing mentioned also by the Apostle will prevail when your reasoning fails I beseech you not complementally but cordially in the fear of God confider it I did not think nor dream that I should have found Mr. Haggar in the Quakers Camp whither many of his Church are gone in Staffordshire SECT 7. H. H. Though we have affirmed a Negative yet you cannot justly apply to us that Scripture 1 Tim. 1.5 6 7. For we desire not to be teachers of the Law therefore Mr. Baxter saith We are Antinomians and deny the Law But I answer both you and he desires â—o be teachers of the Law Witness your running to Moses to prove Infant-baptism and Church-membership from Circumcision and the old Covenant c. Reply 1. It 's plain that the Law in the place mentioned is taken for the Moral Law Now I know no reason why any should be ashamed of being teachers of that Law or of being desirous to be such if their ends in desiring be sincere their call be regular and their gifts for that work be suitable q) 1 Tim. 1.3 The Apostle doth not blame any absolutely for teaching the Law for he saith We know the Law is good if a man use it lawfully but for undertaking a work beyond your call and abilities as those vain janglers did v. 5 6 7. Otherwise this desire is condemnable as 1 Tim. 3 1. A worthy work and the more desirous of and industrious in this work the more they are approved of God and good men And I pray you remember our Lord Jesus Christ r) Mat 15.17 to the end with c 7 12. was a diligent teacher of this Law So was Paul Å¿) Rom. 3.31 13.8 9 10. 1 Cor. 9.8 Eph. 6.2 c. so was James t) Jam. 2.8 9 10 11.14 Now you cannot vilifie us for teaching the Law absolutely but you must vilifie these and if we be desirous to be teachers of the Law we have a good copie to write after good examples to follow 2. If your words bear any common sense you plainly disclaim teaching the Law and assent to Mr. Baxters charge calling you Antinomians I accept of your acknowledgment Let that brand stick on you wipe it off if you can For Mr. Cook saith modestly that you who would be counted great Disputers and discussers of the Truth in so saying give just cause to judge that you are such men who are there described in Timothy and you here speak plainly that you desire not to be teachers of the Law 3. Here therefore was sufficient reason to apply that Scripture to you not onely in regard of your not understanding what you say and whereof you affirm which was the principal thing intended but also in regard of your professed desire to be a teacher of the Law though here you disclaim it Did you never teach against Drunkenness Whoredom Idolatrie Covetousness Profaneness c. and are not these things forbidden and condemned in the Law Did you not do you not teach the people that they must love God and their Neighbor worship God rightly sanctifie his Sabbath c. And are not these things commended and commanded in the Law 4. Though you say you desire not to teach the Law do you not urge the Law when you think it may serve your turn E. g. p. 13. you prove from Exod. 20.19 the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord. Without doubt the fourth Commandement is part of the Moral Law And pag. 52. you urge the fear of God and the keeping his Commandements u) Eccl. 12.13 which is the doctrine of the Law Now these and the like things you teach either with your will or not If not who forceth you to teach against your will If with your will how can you truly say you desire not to be teachers of the Law 5. Though you desire not to be teachers of the Law yet you desire to be Teachers for you take upon you to be Teachers witnesse your vocal and printed doctrine it must needs follow that you desire and practise the teaching of that which is against or besides the Law I mean God's Law for of that the Apostle speaks and consequently against or besides the Gospel For though the Law as it was mis-understood and misapplied by the blind and unbelieving Jews was contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel and Law too yet the true doctrine of the Law is agâ—â—eable to the doctrine of the Gospel as appears clearly by many Scriptures v) Matis 17 18 19 20 c. Luk 14.44 From 3.31 10.4 specially by the words of the Apostle immediately following that Scripture * 1 Tim. E. ver 7.8 9 10 11. which hath occasioned this discussion Whence observe 1. All these with the like sins and sinners are contrary to sound Doctrine 2. This sound Doctrine is the doctrine of the Law for it's-said ver 9. The Law is made or rather lies x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heavily with its curses 3. This sound Doctrine of the Law is according to the Gospel Now seeing you will be a Teacher and yet disclaim teaching God's Law which so harmoniously agrees with the Gospel that whosoever teacheth the one rightly must teach the other also and whosoever rejecteth the one must reject the other I appeal to your consciences if not seared whether your Doctrine be nâ—t unsound illegal un-evangelical Doctrine And seeing the Law is just holy good spiritual whether your Doctrine be not unholy unjust evil and carnal And if Christ tell us y) Mat. 5.19 That whosoever breaketh one of these least Commandements and shall teach men so shall be least in the kingdom of heaven what think you will become of those who teach men to reject all the Commandements and wole Law and would be accounted Teachers but desire not to be Teachers of the Law 6. For your crimination of running to Moses we do as Christ z) Mark 12.26 with Luk. 10. ver 37. did who did run to Moses to prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces and * 1 Cor. 9.9 with 1 Tim. 5. ver 18. as Paul did to prove the main enâ—nce for Gospel-Ministers and as your self doth who run to Moses to prove a Sabbath pag. 13. fore-named SECT 8. H. H. pag. 31. And thus Mr. Cook I shall at present take leave of you c. Reply Indeed you do for the present take leave of Mr. Cook
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
they have it But I pray try us with some first and see I confess we cannot understand this Book of yours to be plain Scripture proof for c. because you have packt it so full of such Whimsies as these Geometry Arithmetick Grammar c. But Sir God's Word is of another nature Psal 19.7.8 119.98 99 100. all which I believe you will find to be true before we have done Reply 1. It 's possible that some men cannot understand plain Scripture if they hear it and Mr. Baxter in this 3d Position gives a reason of it Otherwise one man should know as much as another and all as much as their Teachers seeing they all read and hear the same Word If you will not believe Mr. Baxter nor Scripture nor experience will you believe your own words for a little after the beginning of this pag. 34. you say The Apostles preacht very plainly and yet there were Many hearers which rejected their words though very plain It 's possible and plain that you can quickly contradict and confound your self and yet perhaps it 's not possible that you will believe it 2. You have been tried sufficiently with plain Scripture and we see you will not believe it nor understand it Like those who are complained on a) Isa 28.9 Whom shall he teach knowledg and make to understand doctrine Them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts c. 3. It 's very strange to say as you do often that in Mr. Baxters book there is no plain Scripture proof for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism and yet you have plain b) See the Title of the Foundation of the Font discovered Scripture-proof for the baptizing of men and women they believ as a standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ I pray you where are those words A Standing Ordinance of Jesus Christ written in the Scripture 4. Yea it 's stranger to say Mr. Baxters Book is packt so full of such Whimsies as these Geometrie Arithmetick Grammar c. 1. I am mistaken if Mr. B. mentioneth these but onely in this third Position 2. You that profess your self to be a Teacher how can you understand many places of Scripture or make the people to understand them if they come to you for resolution without some skill in these things which you call Whimsies E. g. Without c) Maltae sunt in Bibliâ—s quae numerandi scientian quam dicimus Arithmeticam deposcunt multae quae sine Geometria intelligi non possunt Alst Plaecâ—g l. 2. p. 76 skill in Geometrie how can you understand the Cubits of the length and breadth and height of Noah's Ark made by God's own direction And without Arithmetick d) Dan. 9.25 26. Daniel's seven weeks and sixty two weeks And without Grammar whether the Relative e) Gen. 6.14 15. THIS is to be referred in the end of the 20 ver of the 5. chap. of the of John This is the true God Whether to the Father as the Arrians and Socinians say or to the Son Jesus Christ as the Orthodox most truly say Or without Astronomy how can you understand that Text which maketh Arcturus Orion and Pleiades and the chambers of the South Unlesse you look with other mens eies and take things upon meet trust 3. Now let the Godly judge whether it be not a kind of blasphemy wickedly to term these he like Arts by the name of WHIMSIES f) Joh â— 8 But Learning against which you do so often inveigh hath no enemie but him that is ignorant and unlearned 5. We honor the Word of God as much as you and through grace in some measure know by experience the nature and effects of it and I believ we shall discover that light which is in you to be darkness before we have done SECT 12. H. H. p. 35. You sâ—â— Poâ—â—â— 4. When the cause is so dâ—fficult we must follow the most probâ—ble â—aâ—â— Answ â—hen iâ— seems it 's very difficult for you to prove that Infants ought to be baptized by your own confession and indeed so I believ for that must needâ— be difficult to prove that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for I cannot blame you to say That it 's difficult to prove Reply 1. That it 's difficult to prove Infant-baptism is not Mr. Baxter's confâ—ssion but your own collection yet you would make your Proselytes believ who are very credulouâ— taking all for Gospel that you say that it is Mr. Baxters own confession 2. Admit this Confession it makes nothing for you noâ— against us but rather for uâ— if that saying be tâ—uâ— g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Difficâ—â—â— quae puâ—câ—â—a The more difficult the more excellent It 's â—ard to prove by express Scripture the Christian weekly Sabâ—ath Family-praier twice a day Womens receiving the Lord's Supper and the reâ—t mentioned before h) Chap 5. sect 1. c. with many more yet it hurts not us who conscienciously observ the same noâ— help such who are enemies to them and us Such is the case of Infant-baptism 3. It 's but a vain Repetition of 〈◊〉 loud and lewd calumny that there is not one word of God in all the Bible for Infant-baptism To what end have you sweat so much in answering some of those Scriptures which are usually and rightly brought for Infant-Baptism Sure the Scriptures are the Word of God contained in the Bible SECT 13. H. H. But you say we must follow the most probable way Come on then that we will Now whether it is most probable â—hâ—â— that practice which is no where commanded nor written in Scripture should be of God or of Satan Judge yee Now that Infant-baptism is such a practice as is not written in Scripture both M. Hag. and your self confess Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan Reply 1. Your Argument consists of pure Negatives i) Altera saltem praeâ—issâ—rum sit affiâ—mans â—anex duabus praemissis negaÌ„tibus nil pâ—â—est legitiâ—â—e concluâ—i Eu stach de Syllo p 132. and so concludes nothing For this is the sum and substance of it That which is not written in the Word of God is not of God but of Satan But Infant-baptism is not written in the Word of God Therefore it 's not of God but of Satan 2. You father another untruth on M. H. and M. B. They no where confess that Infant-baptism is not written in Scripture for how many Scriptures do they bring to prove the practise of Infant-baptism 3. You do but eqâ—ivocate in the word WRITTEN for if you mean expresly in so many words and syllablâ—s then your Major is falâ—e and rests on you to be proved In the mean time the falshood may be thus discovered to any Reader from your own principle That which is not wâ—itten expresly in the Word of God is not of God but oâ— Satan but womens receiving the Lords Supper Family prayer morning and evening c. are not
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
charged with those actual sins or else not be owned Church-members Nay it 's plain they were Church-members Deut. 29.10 12 13. Now these converted Ephesians were incorporated into the same body and partakers of the same privileges for themselvs and their children Eph. 2.19.20 Rom. 11.17 5. As Jews and Gentiles of ripe yeaâ—â— in regard of original sin and the fruits thereof needed Christ the Covenant of Grace and Church-membership to save them from the dominion and damnation of sin so Infants who a e under original sin as you acknowledg and which is all sin radically virtually eminently no less need Christ the Covenant of Grace and Church-membership being the onely revealed way of communicating Christ and his merits to save sinners from the wrath of God dominion of sin and eternal damnation SECT 12. H. H. pag. 69. My ninth Argument is from 1 Thes 5. ver 2 4 5. Reply To make the best of your Argument it 's thus All Church-members are children of the Light and know that the day of the Lord cometh as a Thief c. But Infants are not children of the light nor know c. 1. The same Answer might here serve sith the Fallacie is the same But 2. If a man should argue that John baptized Infants because it 's said Mat. 3.5 6. All Judea and all the Regions round about and Infants may be said to go out too though carried in their parents arms Exod. 10.9 10 24. 12.37 went out and were baptized of him you would not well resent it for it would spoil your cause and yet the conclusion follows more clearly then yours 3. If some Infants be not children of the light and of the day they are children of darkness and of the right The Scripture knows not a third state but it may be to carry on your design for Popery you can tell us of a Limbus Infantum 4. The Apostle doth not say that the Saints unto whom he wrote at Thessalonica did all know perfectly that the Lord 's coming should be as a Thief in the night there it no universal particle in the second verse neither doth he mean that they â—â—â—â—e ALL the children of the Light as if there had been none in the world besides those grown Christians in that Church ver 5. speaks of another matter least of all doth the Apostle say or imply here or elswhere That all Church-members know perfectly c. ver 2. This you prove not all SECT 12. H. H. Tenth Argument from 1 Thes 2.11 If Paul did exhort and charge every one of the Church to do these things then there were no Infants for they are not capable of exhortation consolation c. ver 11. Therefore Reply This I confess hath some form of a Syllogism viz. Hypothetical though for brevity it might have been Categorical to which I say 1. The Major is granted if it be understood of immediate present exhortation to every particular member of that Church without exception But then your assumption or Minor is denied though you think it guarded with Scripture for it is not said we exhorted every particular Church-member but you i. e. to those grown Christians to whom he immediately wrote And though it be directed to the Church 1 Thes 1.1 yet it 's not said every particular Church-member was bound to read hear understand and obey this Epistle so soon as it came It was enough that it was directed to the principal members which oft have the denomination of the whole by whom it might be as there was occasion communicated to others The Apostle calls this Church for all whom hee gives thanks 1 Thes 1. ver 1 2 3 4. Brethren will it follow therefore that Women among them who are not brethren are not Church-members 2. Doth not the same Apostle say If ANY would not work neither should they eat yet you are so pitiful that you will not deny food to little Babes pag 62. me-thinks you should be as pitiful not to deny to them Church-membership though they cannot perform all the acts of a Church-member no more then the Circumcised Infants of the Jews could 3. Yet again to your Major though the Apostle did not speak or write directly or immediately to Infants yet mediately and indirectly he did in speaking and writing to their parents who were to lay hold on the promises c. for themselvs and their children and being instructed in their duties were to teach their children when capable Gen. 18.19 Deut. 6.7 2 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 6.4 If in this sense Paul's teaching be taken as there is no just reason to the contrary then the consequence is so far from being true that the opposite conclusion must needs be true SECT 13. H. H. p. 70. Eleventh Argument from Heb. 6.11 12. Wee desire every one of you to shew the same diligence c. Little children cannot Therefore no sâ—ch Babes were Church-members in the Church of the Hebrews Reply 1. I do not remember that in this Epistle there is express mention made of the Church of the Hebrews Will you be guilty of that fault which you charge often on your Adversaries viz. Of adding to the Word Take heed 2. This Argument is like the former and therefore the same answer might serve This Exhortation was directly and immediately given to persons of years yet remotely to the children of the faithful who were bound to bring them up when grown as Abraham and the Israelites did theirs Gen. 18. Deut. 6. Psal 78. of Abraham I say for of his chiefly the Author speaks ver 12 13 c. 3. By this Arguing it might be proved that none of their Infants were Hebrews thus Every one of the Hebrews is desired to shew the same diligence to c. But none of the Infants were desired Therefore Or Because a Master of a family writes that every one in the family should be diligent and faithful in their places shall any conclude that his little children are no members of that family 4. There is a like universal charge given to all Israel Deut. 29.10 11 12 18 19 20. yet because little ones could not understand c. must they be concluded or excluded rather out of the Covenant No there is express mention made of their being taken into Covenant SECT 14. H. H. p. 70 71. My 12th and last Argument from Phil. 4. ver 21 22. the summe is this All the Saints at Rome whence this Epistle came sent salutations to the Saints at Philippi but no Infants at Rome did salute nor any Infants at Philippi could receive salutations Therefore no infants at either place are Church-members The Major proved by this Scripture the Minor by rason and common sense Reply 1. If you believe the Subscription of this Epistle to be Canonical Scripture for you confidently avouch this Epistle came from Rome you smell again strongly of the Popish cask Beza saith in one copie it is thus It is finished without any other addition But no
made so Then they were not so born if they had they should not have need to bee made so Again If make Disciples All Nations and teach all Nations be all one as M. Baxter affirms then it is clear that Disciples are made by preaching the Word But Infants that understand not earthly things if we tell them can much less understand the things of the kingdom of heaven declared by the preaching of the Gospell Therefore Reply 1. You still forget the work you had undertaken which was to answer but instead of answering the Arguments brought to prove Infants-Disciple-ship you take the opponents place and say you will prove that they are not cannot be Disciples 2. Your Argument here is like that earth Gen. 1.2 without Form and voyd confused Chaos without head or foot in no mood or figure as Logicians know and therefore I have transcribed it at large only paring away some superfluous words that all may see what a Babel you have built 3. Admit your first conclusion were granted as nothing touching us which should be thus Therefore not born so if you understand the Apostles making Disciples of adult Heathens onely But your reason is false and foolish For not onely he that is a Disciple already need to be made still a better Disciple or Scholar But also somtimes to bee made and to bee born is all one Christ himself was made King Psal 2.6 I have set or as the word is annointed my King and yet hee was born King Mat. 2.2 Where is he that is born King Say the wise men It matters not how they came to know it whether from the Prophecy of Balaam or some other of Daniel c. or from the Revelation of the Angel which appeared to them as to the Shepherds saying There is born to you this day a Saviour Luk. 2.11 which is the Christ or the annointed Lord i. e. Prince or King The same in another phrase with this here in Mat. 1. with an Emphasis on THE i. e. the expected King or Messias Onely it 's clear that Christ in God's wise and eternal decree was made a King and yet born a King And to put it out of doubt Christ is said to be made of a woman Gal. 4.4 with Mat. 1.16 What is that but to be born of a woman 4. As for the Apostles making Disciples by teaching c. Whereof Infants are uncapable there is not the same reason of a Church to be constituted and of a Church already constituted taken into Covenant The former was the subject about which principally the Apostles were imployed the latter of ordinary Pastors and Ministers Though these Heathens and their children were not Disciples nor in Covenant by any birth priviledge when the Apostles were first to preach the Gospel out of the Pale of Judea they and theirs were under the power of the Devil born and brought up in his school of Infidelity and Idolatry But when they were converted and constituted a Church the children of such thus called were born by virtue of God's Covenant apprehended by faith Maâ— 10.14 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Subjects of Christ's Kingdom and holy and so consequently Disciples and Scholars in the school of Christ as is proved at large in M. Baxters and M. Cooks Books which you pretend to answer but indeed answer nothing to the greatest and most materiall part therein 5. As for teaching It is outward or inward immediate or remote formall or virtuall Infants while such though not ordinarily capable of outward immediate formall teaching by men yet may be said truly to be taught remotely and virtually in the teaching of their parents who are ingaged by admission into covenant and further instruction to hand over these saving truths to their children who are for the present dedicated to Christ as his Disciples to be trained up in his School Gen. 17.7 8.9 and 18 19. as Isaac and other children in Abraham's Family were consecrated to God to be taught by Abraham in the doctrine of the Covenant which order holds now in the time of the Gospel 2 Tim. 3.15 Ephes 6.4 And as for the inward teaching of Christ and his Spirit who can doubt but believers Infants whil'st such are capable of it though God's â—â—eer power and the passive capacity could be no ground of our perswasion or expectation that it should be so yet they being taken into the School of Christ kingdom of God and under the influence of the Spirit are within the compass of those promises Deut. 30.6 Isa 54.23 Jer 31.33 34. Mat. 11 25 Howsoever it least become you of all others to deny or doubt that Christ by his Spirit can illuminate Infants when you hold unqâ—estionably That by virtue of Christ's death they even the Infants of Heathens are justified and saved by virtue of Christ 〈◊〉 death p. 60.61 Surely Christ is made wisedom and sanctification to them to whom he is made justification and redemption 1 Cor. 1.30 SECT 2. H. H. Here M. Baxter and I must have discourse before we part for he tells us of diverse ways to make Disciples besides teaching them which in plain terms is to say There are diverse ways to make Scholars besides or without teaching of them which to me is a paradox Reply 1. M. Baxters distinction of a Disciple compleat and incompleat largely and strictly taken c. pag. 14. which you wisely take no notice of because you cannot answer cuts in sunder the sinews of your Argument and so makes your arguing of none effect 2. He saith p 23. There are more ways of teaching then by PREACHING in a Pulpit as mothers teach by action as well as by voyce For Gideon with briars and thorns TAUGHT the men of Succoth Judg. 8.16 And Solomon tells us a naughty person a wicked man that TEACHETH with his fingers Prov. 6.13 as you have done by writing this poisonous Pamphlet of yours All preaching I confesse is teaching but all teaching is not preaching A School-Master cannot bee said to preach to his Scholars in the School when yet he teacheth them their Lessons 3. It is a Paradox to you that there are more ways then one of making Scholars then by preaching as M. Baxter saith so were Christ's Aporisms Paradoxes to flesh and blood Mat. 5.3 to 12. as the doctrine of Christ and the Resurrection were to the Epicureans and Stoicks and yet Orthodox to sound judgments Acts 17. verse 18 19. I had thought here to have proceeded to your second Argument and to have left the Vindication of M. Baxter to himself who intends to deal with you and the rest of your Gang as I am credibly informed but because you would construe this as a meer evasion I shall by the help of the Lord go on Though I may say as truly of him as you do of M. T. p. 36. He is of age and able to answer for himself yea and more truly too For you p. 95. contradict his judgment for baptizing in warm water
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