for here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} comming between two words of different genders it may accord with either So that according to rule it may be either {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and in my judgement this is as little to the purpose as the other for here is no Synthesis in either of these two places Oppo I will prove that the commission in the 28th of Mat. cannot be a warrant for Parents to require Baptisme for their Children If the TEXT do require teaching before Baptising then it can be no warrant to Baptise Children who cannot be taught but the TEXT requires teaching before Baptising Therefore that can be no warrant to Baptise Children or require Baptisme for them before they can be taught Res I deny the minor the TEXT in the 28th of Mat. Go Disciple all Nations doth not require teaching before Baptising in all persons indeed in those that are of years of discretion and capable of understanding the Apostles were first to teach them and to make them willing by teaching and afterward to Baptise them But for Infants they were first of all to make them Disciples by Baptising of them and afterward to teach them when they are capable of understanding Oppo I have to oppose unto you The translators and translations of all sorts in all Languages from the first to the last so far as I know translated it Teach without any doubt or scruple Res Do you know what is the Ethiopick word Oppo No I do not Next compare Scripture with Scripture there being no better interpreter this TEXT being compared with Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World preach the Gospel to every Creature These Commissions are the same indifferent words Matthew Saith Go Disciple or teach all Nations Mark Saith Go preach the Gospel to every Creature Res I deny them to be the same neither given at the same time nor at the same place for the one was given in Galilae in a mountain where Jesus had papointed them The other was given to them when Jesus appeared to them as they sate at meat Oppo Time and place doth not alter the Commission or prove them to be two how doth it appear by your words that these words were spoken at several times and in two places was it possible they might sit at meat in the mountain of Galilae The next thing I have to urge you with is the practice of the Apostles who best knew the meaning of the Commission They in the execution of this Commission did preach the Gospel and when the People beleeved they Baptised them both Men and Women but not a word of Children Acts 9. 12. In the City of Samaria were there no Children there Res Philip Baptised both Men and Women under which Children are comprehended which is usual in Scripture for Josua 8. 25. it is said that Josua destroyed all the Inhabitants of Ai And so it was that all that fell that day both of Men and Women were twelve thousand even all the Men of Ai Here Children are comprehended under Men and Women for they also were destroyed for he utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai and Children were part it may be a great part of the inhabitants of Ai Oppo This is not much to the purpose the TEXT doth not say that there were no more inhabitants but twelve thousand but the Men and Women were twelve thousand and that they were all the Men of Ai It is possible notwithstanding that TEXT that the inhabitants of Ai might be twenty thousand the Children being accounted I leave your answer to consideration and proceed to another argument If Baptisme of Infants be Lawfull then it is of God but it is not of God Therefore it is not Lawfull Res Baptisme of Infants is of God and an ordinance of God Oppo Whatsoever is of God is to some good use or purpose But Baptisme of Infants is to no good use or purpose Therefore Baptisme of Infants is not of God Res Baptisme of Infants is to very good purpose namely to wash away their Original sin that so they may be made the Children of God without which they cannot be saved Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God Opp. I will prove that Baptisme cannot wash away the sin of Infants If all the sin that Infants are or can be guilty of be taken away before Baptisme then Baptisme cannot wash it away But all the sin that Infants are or can be guilty of is washed away before Baptisme Therefore Baptisme cannot wash away sin of Infants Res The sin of Infants is not washed away before Baptisme Oppo If Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World whereof they are guilty then all their sin is taken or washed away before Baptisme But Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World therefore all their sin is washed away before Baptisme Res I deny the consequence Oppo If the sin of the World be taken away before Baptisme then the consequence is true But the sin of the World is taken away before Baptisme therefore the consequence is true Res I deny the minor the sin of the World is not taken away before Baptisme I know your Scriptures Oppo If Christ took the sin of the World away by his death when he died then it is taken away before Baptisme But Christ Jesus took away the sin of the World by his death therefore it was taken away before Baptisme Res Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World by his death Oppo John 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the World 1. Pet. 2. 24. Who himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many with a multitude of places Deut. 9. 24. To finish sin and make an end of transgression c. Res Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World but only Potentially in procuring a possibility of pardon upon conditions performed namely of Faith Repentance and Baptisme in those that are of years of discretion and of Baptisme in Infants and as they who are of years of discretion cannot have sin taken away without repentance Faith and Baptisme no more can Infants without Baptisme Opp. I will prove that Christ did actually take away the sin of the world by his death That which was not imputed was actually taken away but the sin of the World was not imputed Therefore it was actually taken away Res The sin of the World was imputed before Baptisme Oppo 2. Cor. 5. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them Coll. 1. 20. And having made peace through the bloud of his cross by him to reconcile all things to himself Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Esa.
hundred sentences and who knows how many they have inserted Oppo I can make it plain out of Tertullian that he alloweth the Baptisme of Infants in case of necessitie and danger of death Besides it is known Tertullian was an Heretique and died an Heretique But I shall refer to the Auditors what hath been said unto this argument You have said any one doth not include all and that water is not Literall water I will proceed to another argument to prove the Lawfullness of Infant Baptisme A There was yet nothing spoken to the third answer of the Respondent which is of as great consequence as any of the other and if the other were of no force yet if that stand good the argument is of no force it was this that supposing the TEXT alledged did speak of Baptising yet by Entring into the Kingdome of Heaven is meant no other thing then a state of happiness which beleevers do attain unto here in this life through faith in Christ Jesus viz. Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost B I suppose the Opponent had forgotten to refell it and the Answerer had also forgotten to call for it Let us hear the Opponent prosecuting a second argument Oppo That which is no sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to perform being required is Lawfull But it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants neither for Ministers to perform it being required Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Lawfull Res I deny the minor It is a sin for Parents to require and for Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants Oppo That which is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World is no sin for Parents to require or for Ministers to perform But the Baptisme of Infants is confirmed by an everlasting law and standing commission not to be altered to the end of the World Therefore it cannot be sin in Parents to require or in Ministers to performe being required Res I deny the minor and say There is No commission authorizing Parents to require or Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants being required Oppo The Commission is Mat. 28. 18 19 20. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth Go ye therefore and make Disciples of all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World AMEN Here the Apostles are Commanded to make Diciples of all Nations Baptising them and then teaching them Here it is plain Baptising after Teaching Res I do not deny that Teaching should follow Baptisme But I deny that Baptisme should go before all Teaching moreover here is not one word of Parents requiring Baptisme for Infants or one word of Infants being Baptised And whereas you seem to imply that the Apostles should make Disciples by Baptising of them I demand of you before this assembly whether you beleeve that by vertue of this Commission by you alledged the Apostles or their successors either had or have authority to take all Nations and Baptise them whether they will or no Whether they consent or not Opp. No I do not imagin so but that they were first to make those that where of years of discretion willing by Preaching and then to Baptise them And those that were not of years to make them Disciples by Baptising of them Res Now you say something first make them willing and then Baptise them But you have not exprest in the Commission any thing of Children who are not willing How willing Children are appears by their Crying and Strugling at the Font Oppo I will prove Children are not unwilling for as Ignoti nulla Cupido there can be no desire or will to a thing we do not know so neither can there be any Vnwillingness to that which is unknown now Children knowing nothing of Baptisme it is not possible they should be Vnwilling seeing they know not any thing of the matter Res You might have spared this labour for I did not say Children were Unwilling But I said they were not Willing your duty had been to prove they were Willing there is a vast difference between Unwilling and not Willing you know how willing Constantinus Copronymus was to be Baptised when he was an Infant and how he came to have the name of Copronymus I can tell you the story But I will not in this auditory I desire you to frame a Silogisme out of the TEXT alledged concluding that here is a commission either to Baptise Infants or to require their Baptisme Oppo I will The Apostles are here Commanded to make Disciples of all Nations now Infants who are part of the Nations cannot be made Disciples any other way then by Baptisme therefore they are here commanded to make Disciples by Baptisme Res First I say you cannot prove that this Commission under the title of all Nations extendeth any more to Infants then that in Mark 16. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature extendeth to Infants you will confess you have no warrant for to Preach to an Infant in the Cradle from this place Secondly I deny that Baptisme maketh Disciples it manifesteth one to be a Disciple it doth not make him one I pray prove if you can that Baptisme maketh any one a Disciple it is written John 4. 1. Jesus made and Baptised more Disciples then John It is one thing to make another thing to baptise a disciple Oppo I had thought it had been a matter of conscience your deniall of the Baptisme of Infants but now I perceive you go about to deny all Baptisme I will prove it is no sin for Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants Where there is no Law there is no Transgression for sin is the Transgression of a Law But there is no Law forbidding Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants or forbidding Ministers to administer Baptisme to Infants therefore it is no sin either to require or administer Baptisme to Infants Res There is a Law forbidding it and that under a severe punishment Oppo Shew where that Law is to be found Res I will Deut. 18. 20. Here Moses Prophesieth of Christ in these Words A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you c. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name which I have not Commanded him c. Even that Prophet shall die Mark this One word and Prover 30. 6. Add not thou to his Words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar So that until you be able to prove a command there must needs lye a prohibition in the way Oppo I have proved a Command already and I will further prove it All Church members may Lawfully be Baptised Infants are Church members Therefore Infants may Lawfully be Baptised Res I deny the
do not overcome the World Therefore they are not born of God Res Every thing in the TEXT must be extended no further then to such to whom the Apostle wrote Oppo I say the same thing this answers not the force of the argument at all I will prove by another argument that Children cannot be born again c. If Infants be born of Water and of the Spirit then are they Church members and Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant But Infants are not Church members nor Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant Therefore they are not born again of Water c. Res The minor is denyed Infants are Church members and Sons of the New Covenant Opp. If Infants be Church members and Sons of the New Covenant then they so know the Lord as not to need any teacher But Infants do not so know the Lord as not to need a teacher therefore Infants are not Church members nor Sons of the New Covenant Res The consequence is denyed Oppo If all the Church members and Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord then the Consequence is true But all Church members and the Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord Therefore the consequence is true Res The minor is denyed all the Church members and Children of the new Covenant do not so know the Lord as not to need to be taught to know the Lord Oppo The minor is proved Heb. 8 8 9 10 11. verses Jer 31. 33 34. verses This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their mind and write them in their Hearts and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People and they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his Brother saying know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest Res They shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every one his Brother that is they shall not be all Teachers James 3. My Brethren be not many Masters {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is Teachers every one should not be a Teacher to run before he be sent and intrude into the Office without a Lawfull call for no Man taketh this Office upon him but he that is called of God Again we know that not only Children but Beleevers Men and Women need teaching Oppo I am ashamed of your Interpretation of this TEXT so far from the truth and I am perswaded from your own Conscience Would you not have Christians to teach and exhort and edifie one another What manner of Spirit is this You say all need teaching so say I also But there are some things that the Children of the new Covenant need not be taught Ye need not that any Man teach you 1. John 2. 27. and that is to know the Lord which is rendred a reason of the first words they shall all know me from the least to the greatest Res This word All doth not include Children Infants Oppo I do not say it doth but it includes all Church members and Children of the new Covenant from the least to the greatest Least and greatest and middle and all Church members Res You insist much upon the word All All When the word All hath his restriction in many places of Scripture 1. Cor. 15. 27. It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him Oppo I do not marvil that you so much except against me for insisting upon the word All and whereas you say the word All hath restriction in Scripture I do not deny it but to prevent a restriction in this place there is added from the Least to the Greatest I leave this to consideration and proceed If Children be born of Water and of the Spirit and be made Church members then are they Disciples But Children are not nor cannot be Disciples therefore they cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. Res The minor is denyed Infants may be Disciples and are Disciples Oppo If all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and take up their cross and follow Christ then Infants who are not able to do these things cannot be Disciples But all Disciples must hate Father and Mother and Life for Christ and must take up their cross and follow Christ Therefore Infants cannot be Disciples Res The minor is denyed It is not required in every Disciple to hate Father and Mother and Life or to take up his cross and follow Christ but of such Disciples as are of years Oppo The minor is proved in every part of it by plain TEXT of Scripture Mat. 16. 24. Luke 14. 26 27. If any Man come unto me here is your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so often alledged and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and Brethren and Sisters yea and his own Life also he cannot be my Disciple and whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my Disciple Many TEXTS of the like kind there are Res If any One and Whosoever doth not include Children But the multitudes that went with him to whom he spake vers. 25th and in the 28th vers. Which of you intending to build a Tower c. he speaks of all them that are Capable to hear him and to understand him Oppo Take notice that this is a weapon of your own that I do oppose you with and consider how strange a thing you presented it to the People that I should restrain that place of the third of John Except any one be born again And you your self are forced to restrain this where the very same word is used I demand whether the proposition laid down in the TEXT be true Res You did restrain it but you gave no reason of your restraining it But I have good reason in the Context why it should be restrained Do you shew as good reason as I have done already Oppo I have shewed reasons equal with yours You say Christ spake to the multitudes which followed him I say Christ spake to Nicodemus who come to him to enquire of the wayes of God for himself Besides be pleased to remember that the restraint of the word was not my sole answer But I gave you answer taking it in the largest sence I gave you three answers you give only this Another argument If it be a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for or in the behalf of their Infants then the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull But it is a sin in Parents to require Baptisme in the behalf of their Infants Therefore the Baptisme of Infants is Vnlawfull Res It is not a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants But a thing Commendable and good Opp. If Parents
have no Command nor Commission from God to require Baptisme for Infants then it is a sin in them to require it for Infants but Parents have neither Command nor Commission from God to require it for their Children therefore it is a sin in Parents to require Baptisme for their Infants Res Parents have a Commission from God to require Baptisme for their Infants Oppo Shew us a Commission Res Mat. 28. 19. Make Disciples of all Nations Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things that I have Commanded you and lo I am with you always even to the end of the World Oppo Here is no Commission to Parents but only to the Apostles Res The Apostles are here commanded to teach them to observe all things which Christ Commanded them They are sent into the World to teach those that are of years and make them willing and then to Baptise them and as for Children to make them Disciples by Baptising of them and to teach the Parents to require Baptisme for their Children that thereby they may be made Disciples though they be not Capable of teaching Oppo You have often urged me with antiquity and charged me with novelty I do now justly charge you with a Novel interpretation of the Scripture Not above twenty years old at the most viz. that the meaning of the TEXT alledged should be this Make them Disciples by Baptising them Res This is ancient and the Fathers did understand this TEXT so But as for your opinion it was not heard of little above 500 years ago Then there rose up on Henricus that denyed the Baptisme of Infants They that followed him were called Henricians and he and his followers were condemned for Heretiques and excommunicated for their Heresie A Have patience I pray you and bear with me a little I desire to understand the whole matter of these Heretiques and Heresies and by whom they were comdemned and excommunicated for this will give me satisfaction in some things B I will declare the matter from the beginning of it About the year 1047. there reigned in Germany Henry the third King who held two grand Heresies as the Pope and his followers were pleased to stile them the one was detected viz. That Church Lands and Church-men were subject to his Jurisdiction A This was his detected heresie What was the other suspected B De Baptismo parvultorum perperam sonsisse Creditur He was suspected to have an evill opinion of the Baptisme of Infants from this Henry the third King who was afterward Emperour the second of that name Began the Henrician heresie After him succeeded not in the Empire but in opinion Peter de Bruis His opinions laid to his charge were 1. That Infants could not be saved by Baptisme 2. That the faith of other men could not stand them in stead that had no faith of their own 3. That crosses were to be pluck down and burned 4. That the Body and bloud of Christ was not really or corporally present in the Sacrament 5. That the Sacrament was not a Sacrifice to be offered to God 6. That Prayers and Alms made and given by the living did not profit the dead 7. That Christians had no need of consecrated places to Worship God in neither need they to build any 8. Vpon the Lords day before Easter He invited much People to a feast and dressed his meat with a fire made of woodden crosses After this man in the Year 1147. there arose one Henricus a Monk which is the man spoken of by the answerer who was accused of Heresieby his adversaries His heresies as they termed them were these First Infants are not to be Baptised 2. The cross of Christ is not to be Worshipped 3. The Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 4. It is in vain to pray for the dead 5. God is provoked to wrath by Church musick This was the Henrician Heresy in the full They who did condemn and excommunicate these Men were the Pope his Cardinalls andCouncell and Bernard the fairest flower among them A Surely I beleeve the same persons would have comdemned this Answerer also forasmuch as he also is guilty of some of their opinions for which they were condemned B That is true enough I therefore wonder why he did instance in these persons But I will return to the Disputation Oppo I will prove that this interpretation of the place alledged cannot be true viz. to make Disciples by Baptising First By the Grammaticall Construction of the place Secondly By the general Consent of Translators Thirdly By the â—cripture Compared with this place And Fourthly by the practice of the Apostles who were the persons executing this Commission Make Disciples of all Nations Baptising them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I demand what is the antecedent to the relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not understood in the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Res {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nations is the anticedent Oppo That cannot be for then the Commission should be this make the Nations Disciples by Baptising them and you have granted that this Commission doth not extend to all in the Nations but only to such as are willing Secondly {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the Newter gender and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Masculine how do they agree Res It is a figure called Synthesis wherein one gender is put for another which is frequent in the new Testament Oppo I do not remember any place neither do I beleeve any parallel place can be shewed out of the new Testament Res Although I do not carry a Concordance in my head yet I can shew you one place in John 14. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath for his antecedent {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Oppo It is nothing so for the anticedent is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the beginning of the vers and the words between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are a Parenthesis and may be omitted without breaking the sence Res Is the Parenthesis noted in your Book Opp. No But your consience tells you it ought to be Res I will give you another place Ephesi 1. 13 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Here {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for his antecedent this is a plain Synthesis Oppo It is so because of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} understood What is the earnest of the inheritance Res {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Spirit of God A Here the Respondent speaketh not punctually according to the truth
53. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all A multitude of witnesses might be produced Res This is none other but what was said before he did not impute them virtually not but that he did impute them actually until the performance of the conditions afore named Oppo I will leave these places to consideration and prove that the sin of Infants was taken away wholly before Baptisme by another argument If the law whereby they were held guilty was wholy taken away then the sin was wholy taken away But the law whereby they were held guilty was actually and wholely taken away Res The law whereby they were held guilty was not actually taken away Oppo If the Covenant that God made with Man before his fall be wholely and actually taken away then the law whereby they were held guilty is taken away But the Covenant that God made with Man before the fall is actually taken away therefore the law whereby they were held guilty was taken away Res The major is denyed the Law or Covenant made before the fall of Man is not actually and wholely taken away Oppo If that Christ have established a New Covenant then the Old one is taken away But Christ hath established a New Covenant Therefore the old and former Covenant is taken away Res I deny the consequence both remain Oppo If two Covenants cannot stand together then the consequence is true but two Covenants cannot stand together but the second makes voyde the first therefore the consequence is true Res Two Covenants may stand together Oppo Heb. 8. 13. Heb. 10. 9. He taketh away the first that he might establish the second Heb. 9. 15. Res The Author speaks not of the Covenant made with Adam But of that which God made with the Children of Israel Oppo I urge the reason of the Apostle which if it hold good in that it will also hold good in this if the Covenant made with Israel must be disanulled then also must the Covenant made with Adam before his fall be much more disanulled in asmuch as it hath as great an oposition I shall easily prove that Covenant to be taken away If no Man in the World neither is nor shall be judged by that Covenant then it is wholely taken away But no Man either is or shall be Judged by that Covenant Therefore it is taken away Res Persons shall be Judged by that Covenant made with Adam Oppo If Infants shall be judged by that Covenant made with Adam then Infants dying Unbaptised shall be shut out of Heaven but Infants dying Unbaptised shall not be shut out of Heaven Therefore Infants shall not be judged by that Covenant Res Infants Unbaptised where there is no desire of their Baptisme in their Parents or Friends shall be shut out of Heaven Oppo If Unbaptised Infants be shut out of Heaven then God punisheth some Creatures for that which they cannot help but God punisheth no Creatures for that which they cannot help Therefore Unbaptised Infants are not shut out of Heaven Res I deny the consequence Oppo Then Shutting out of Heaven is no punishment B Here the Auditors some of them brake order some crying out Bear witness he sayth It is no punishment to be shut out of Heaven because of the denyall of this consequence some also affirm he plainly said so in so many sillables which they can witness Res The minor also may be questioned for God may do what he will with his own having all power in his hand as the Potter hath power over his clay to use it at his pleasure Oppo I do not say what God might or may do but what he doth Now we know that God cannot do contrary to his oath but to punish Creatures for that they cannot help is contrary to his oath therefore God cannot do it Moreover thus I argue if God punish Creatures for that they cannot help then he doth not leave all the World without excuse But he will leave all the World without excuse Therefore he will not punish any Creature for that which they cannot help B This the Opponent repeated three or four times over and received no answer at all no notice was taken of it The Respondent complaining of the injury done unto him by the disorder of the Auditors which the Opponent confessed and said it was his sorrow and altogether without his approbation And then he spake as followeth and departed Oppo Although I have many things to propound yet considering the time allotted and agreed upon is spent and my own infirmities begin to press me I shall at this time cease A I pray declare to me what success this disputation had B Surely according to the different affections rather then Judgements of some Men and Women Although Christ himself preached Church Gospel of the Kingdome yet some beleeved and some beleeved not Some spake evill and some well Some cryed Victory on the one side and some on the other A The censure of the vulgar that know nothing is not worthy of the least account in the World their approbation is very near to disgrace and the censure of the Learned who want conscience is as little to be esteemed it was wisely spoken by one of old to a lewd person who commended him highly I am afraid said he I have done something amiss Because thou speakest well of me But I desire to hear how it was resented by those that were truly both Judicious and Consciencious especially what resolution the Gentlewomanâ—ound for whose satisfaction the dispute as you said at first was appointed B I am not able to render a particular account of every one But as touching the Gentlewoman the event was thus The Dispute was ended the 26th day of November and shee as I have heard was Baptised the first day of December A Her practice declares her satisfaction But I remember that day was very cold and sharp it seemes strange that a Gentlewoman should endure it at that season of the year and in such weather to go into the water and to be dipt all over B You know that Fantasticall Ladies have a proverb that Pride feels no cold and their naked necks and breasts and arms even in the coldest weather declare the truth of it know that Faith is stronger in Christian Women who serve the Lord Jesus then Pride is in vain ones who serve the Prince of Darkness Take therefore this for a Maxime That Faith and Zeal feel no cold Peter will adventure to walk upon the water if Jesus say Come And tender Women will not be afraid to go under water when Jesus bids Go very hardly will that person follow Christ into the fire who scruples to follow him into the water But is it not very prejudiciall to the health of such persons who have not been accustomed to wet their feet in water I remember Mr. Baxter writes that it is very dangerous And many thereby are likely to perish if they should not miraculously be preserved
B I acknowledge Mr. Baxter to be a Learned Man in many things But herein he betrayes his science and I am afraid his conscience likewise As touching science it is easy to prove that dipping of Beleevers is not so dangerous as dipping of Infants yet dipping of Infants was not only Commanded by the Church of England but also generally practised in the Church of England till the year 1600. yea in some places it was practised untill the year 1641. untill the fashion altered Again I can make it manifest that dipping either Infants or Beleevers is not so dangerous as Sprinkling of Infants and yet they sprinkle them at all times Night and Day and Winter and Summer And had M. Baxter known this to be true he would have told where and when any Beleever was killed and by whom that so he might have brought an Odium upon the Practise But he gives us not one instance that I know But on the contrary I shall tell you my observation of many hundreds that I have known Baptised of both Sexes of all sorts Old Young feeble persons Women great with child I never knew any that had the least harm or suffered any damage in respect of health I have heard many confess they received much benefit in respect of their Bodies But I never heard any complain neither did I ever know any I speak it to the praise of the providence of God that died within one year after they were Baptised excepting one mayd in Essex who died within a few weeks and Mr. Baxters brethren instigated and spurred the Magistrate untill the person Baptising her was sent to prison for Murther laid in Irons Arrainged at the Bar at the Assizes holden at Chelmford And although witnesses came in the one whereof was her mother and testified that shee was in better health then shee had been for some years before for divers dayes and that shee walked comfortably abroad yet the Jury was informed that he was guilty of Wilfull Murder And had not his appeal stood him in stead he had been in danger of his Life But when he had appealed neither Priest nor People durst prosecute him any more If therefore Mr. Baxter and his Brethren could prove what they affirm to be true how great the Cry would be you may proportionably judge by this one story The whole matter whereof with all the circumstances are worthy to be committed to the Press ad perpetuam rei memoriam That after ages may take notice what manner of persons we live in the midst of who Preach Write and Print that the Anabaptists are bloudy I have a little more to speak to Mr. Baxter that if there were such danger in the Dipping of beleevers as he pretends It must needs be that the Administrator must be in greater perill then the Receiver Forasmuch as the Baptised goeth into the water but once the Baptist often where many times he stayes the time untill divers persons are Baptised if the danger be so great it need not to be feared that the Sect should greatly increase by reason that the Teachers will soon destroy themselves But I can shew Mr. Baxter an old Man in London who hath laboured in the Lords Poole many years converted by his Ministry as an Instrument in the hand of the Lord more Men and Women then Mr. Baxter hath in his parish yea when he hath laboured a great part of the day in Preaching and Reasoning his refection hath been not a Sack-possit or a Cawdle but to go into the water and Baptise Converts And he liveth when younger and wary persons have gone to the grave before him I wonder that Mr. Baxter should forget what he hath read in Authours which he deems Authentike who write that Ethelbert King of Kent with Ten thousand Men and Women were Baptised in Canterbury upon the 25th day of December in the year 597. A The Providence of God appears to be very great in this case as if the Lord did puropsely intend to stop the mouths of Clamorous adversaries yet I beleeve he will not acknowledge it to be any miracle for he will not willingly grant that God works miracles among the Anabaptists But did not the Opponent declare that he had more arguments which he intended to have urged I would willingly hear them B You shall hear them That Doctrine which leaveth power in the hands of Men to kill soules without their own consent cannot be of God But the Doctrine of Infants Baptisme as the Respondent layes it down Leaveth power in the hands of Men to kill soules without their consent therefore the Doctrine of Infant Baptisme laid down by the Respondent is not of God A I think the major cannot be denyed in regard the Scripture saith Men are not able to kill the soule Math. 10. 28. The minor therefore remains to be proved B If men have power by his Doctrine to deprive soules of salvation then they have power to kill soules But by this Doctrine Men have power to deprive soules of salvation therefore by this Doctrine Men have power to kill soules The minor is proved by the grounds which are laid down viz. Baptisme is so absolutely necessary to salvation that no Child can be saved without it Now we see many Parents can and do withhold Baptisme from their Children and thereby according to his Doctrine they kill the soules of their Children For he that depriveth us of the meanes doth deprive us of the end A I will not undertake the answer of this argument Because I know not what to say to it I leave it for them that can I pray you proceed to another argument B That Doctrine which maketh the commands of Christ to be more obscure then the commands delivered by Moses is not of God But the Doctrine of Infant Baptisme maketh the commands of Christ more obscure then the commands delivered by Moses Therefore the Doctrine of Infant Baptisme is not of God That Christ speaks more plain then Moses these Scriptures testifie John 1. 16 17. Heb. 2. 3. Chapters 2. Cor. 3. from the 6th to the 15 verse Now it evidently appears that Moses delivered ordinances plainly and evidently even in the smallest things he was very punctuall according to all the form shewed in the Mount If then the Baptisme of Infants be a thing of so great weight so absolutely necessary to salvation of them How can it be imagined that it should have been wholly left out of the Scripture and not a word of it to be found as the defenders themselves confess but only by consequence and this age is ashamed of the consequences that pleased former ages and bring new and unheard of sequels to confirm what they cannot find in plain terms delivered A third argument is this That Doctrine and practise which begets questions that cannot be answered and is upheld by practises which are ridiculous is not of God But such is the Doctrine and practise of Infant Baptisme therefore it is not of God The questions and doubts are these chiefly 1. How long time may a Child be kept Vnbaptised without sin 2. Whether the Children of Vnbeleevers may be Baptised 3. Whether the faith of the Grandfather may give a Child right to Baptisme 4. How far may we go back in a right or collaterall line to derive the right of Children to Baptisme 5. Whether sureties can perform Faith and Repentance for the Child 6. Whether that Child be truly Baptised whose sureties were unbeleevers The practises that are ridiculous are these 1. The Priest demandeth of the Child whether it do beleeve in God Whether it do forsake the Divell c. whether he or shee desire to be Baptised The Godfather answers Yea for this Child when the Child hath not any desire This is so Ridiculous that our new Reformers are quite ashamed of it and have sent the Antique fashion out of dores and cashired the Godfathers and Godmothers There were of old even of the same antiquity with Infants Baptisme Men that did not spare to Baptise dead Men so great a superstition did possess the minds of some in the second and third Centuries The mode was thus the dead man lieth upon the bed A living man creeps under the bed the Priest demands of the dead man whether he repents whether he desire to be Baptised The living man answers from under the bed for the dead man Yea I do repent I do beleeve I desire to be Baptised after which they proceeded to Baptise the dead man And Scripture they alledged for the Collouring of this absurdity 1. Cor. 15. 29. Why are they then Baptised for the dead and peradventure they might say it was as plain as any could be brought for the Baptisme of Infants This was about the year 180. so soon had men perverted the commands of Christ and were become Strangers to his wayes I will leave all these things to your Judgement to try by the Touchstone what price is to be set upon them The Lord give the Reader and Hearers understanding hearts FINIS Errata Page 7. Line ult. Reade {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Likewise P. 8. L2 P. 10 L. 4. supply I. P. 18. L. 5. Now instead of for P. 24. L. 25. Faith without ground is to begin the Opponents speech P. 30. L. 5. R. Parvulorum P. 31. L. 23. R. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} P. 32. L. 18. for Responent R. Opponent L. 19. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} R. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} P. 33. L. 1 R by P. 33. L. 26. R. was it not possible P. 35. L. 17 R. Dan. 9. P. 38. L. 28. for Church R. the